Rechargable batteires save planet, save money?

unsure

Hi,
I've recently invested in a stock of rechargebale batteries as I was getting concerned at how many standards ones we were throwing awayfrom all the kids toys and gizmos and what the cumulative effect of this might be on the environment. I'm quite happy with their performance over the last coupla months but I'm now wondering whether there is actually an economic as well as environmental argument for their use. i.e does it work out cheaper to recharge and reuse (given that they cost more to start) or am I actually using more power ( and spending more money!) with the rechargables.
I'm sure one of you smarts folks out there knows the answer.

dc

Dont worry, if you get Nihm batteries these cost from 50p upwards, and the high capacity ones equate to the same electrical output power as Alkaline ( Duracell) throw away ones which cost a similar amout. The fact that Nihm batteries are good for 1000+ recharges makes them sooo much cheaper. Imagine the cost of 1000 Duracells.


Take the AA 1.5 volt pen size. the most used batteries, they come in up to 2500 mAh capacity, this in power terms is around 3.5 watt/hours. Seeing that a KwHr of electricity costs around 8p if you had a perfect charger then you would get around 300 re-charges for your 8p. so even with a duff or ineficient charger the costs are minimal.

You are saving the planet.

Ken68

Lidl's price is £1.99.....Focus £4.99 less 10% OAP discount.Sainsbury even dearer.

gromituk

Rest assured, there's a huge cost benefit from using rechargeables. A rough calculation: an 1800mAh 1.2V cell (AA NiMH) contains 1.8x1.2 = 2.2Wh of electrical energy. That's about 1/500th of a unit, and a unit costs something like 10p. Even taking into account inefficiencies in the charging process, it costs a fraction of a penny to recharge.

No wonder they're cheaper: I gather that it takes approx. 50 times more energy to make a non-rechargeable battery than you get from it. People go on about offers on these things in Grabbit. They should realise it is a false economy for them and the environment.

Poppycat

The only time I use normaly batteries is when I get a new product that has a remote control with batteries. I have used rechargables (NiCad) for 25 years or more, and NiMH batteries for 8 years.

7Dayshop have some excellents offers 4xAA 2500mha for £3.99. I normally buy stuff like that when I have other items that I require. You cant go wrong at that price. I am going get some more next time with the adapters that you can fit small batteries inside large ones such as C batteries.

Quasar

I have been using rechargeables for many years now, and as in poppicat's case, the only non-rechargeables to enter my home are those that come already supplied with remote controls etc.

Cheaper to run and avoids having to dispose of the normal ones which are very damaging of the environment.

In fact, I only see positives in them, and I wonder why the wasteful ones are still so popular.

gromituk

Because people are false-economy cheapskates, or too lazy to use a charger.

Dry cells are still better in a few applications, such as very low power drain ones: clocks, remote controls and smoke alarms. Here, the self-discharge rate of rechargeables would be unacceptably high.

unsure

Thanks to all for sharing your knowledge. Just the answer I wanted to hear. It's nice to be environmentally sensitive AND save money at the same time!!!
:j

LittleJo

Hi,
Only one slight snag, with rechargeables the pwer graph falls off sharply as they become exhausted unlike ordinary ones.
Jo

gromituk

LittleJo wrote:

Hi,
Only one slight snag, with rechargeables the pwer graph falls off sharply as they become exhausted unlike ordinary ones.
Jo

Yes, that is true - you have little warning of their failure. So make sure you always have a spare set to hand.

gord115

Poundland 4 x AA rechargables er...£1