College Publisher Test Site

Environmental damage caused by the improper disposal of rechargeable batteries, all forms of which are recyclable, has been and continues to be well documented, but lack of publicity, responsibility, and initiative on the part of battery producers and governmental agencies persists in lending to further global distress.

This situation has not been completely ignored, but due to the ever-increasing usage of rechargeable batteries to power items such as cell phones, notebook computers, and power tools (those being the top three markets), the solutions are simply not keeping pace with the growing problem.

To better illustrate the sheer volume of potential environmental effects suffered from improper battery disposal, it is vital to look at some key statistics.

"The worldwide market for batteries in 2001 was estimated at $37.7 billion," according to The Powers Review, Year 2000 Battery Industry Developments.

Well over 50 percent of consumers now say that they depend on four or more cordless products everyday. Every year, more than three billion batteries are thrown away by American households, and, in one year, disposed AA batteries alone, placed end to end, would circle the earth six times.

The move to battery power is only expected to become more expansive. In 1998, Duracell reported a 60 percent increase in battery-operated devices in American households between 1987 and 1995. It is clear that, now, more than ever, it is essential to implement more environmentally friendly methods of battery disposal.

The vast majority of exhausted batteries are currently dumped into landfills, where they can have extremely negative effects on the planet, as well as the life that it supports. Rechargeable batteries contain heavy metals such as nickel, cadmium, cobalt, mercury, and lead, which can leach out of landfills into our air, ground, and water.

All of these elements are potentially harmful to humans and the environment. For example, cadmium can cause lung damage, kidney disease, and death, and lead can damage the kidneys, nervous system, and reproductive system, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Lead poisoning is also commonly diagnosed in cattle, and the death rate can be close to 20 percent.

Even lithium, another element used in some rechargeable batteries and considered a more environmentally benign substance, can produce acid rain when present in salt form and is a suspected kidney and liver toxicant. Despite this, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) still contends that "spent lithium batteries are safe for disposal in the municipal solid waste stream."

Battery experts such as the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation (RBRC) warn that rechargeable batteries should never be discarded as regular trash but rather recycled or sent to a hazardous waste collection site.

The major problem with following through on such a strategy is that few governments, agencies, or businesses have initiated any widespread public awareness campaign to educate consumers on the dangers of improper disposal and provide them with a readily accessible recycling program.

Valuable efforts are currently being made, specifically by the RBRC, but history reveals the slow process that has been the establishment of rechargeable battery recycling programs.

The possibility of a rechargeable battery was first considered in 1802 by German Physicist Johann Ritter, and the first practical secondary (rechargeable) battery became reality in 1859, due to the efforts of French Physicist Raymond Gaston PlantŽ.

More than 100 years later, in 1996, The Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Act finally created a recycling label for rechargeable batteries and eliminated the use of mercury in most batteries. Still, not until 2001 did the RBRC begin collection and recycling of all rechargeable battery chemistries.

It is clear that we have gotten a late start on saving our planet from the dangers of battery waste, and though through the efforts of groups like the RBRC we have formulated a plan, its imperfection is proven by our public's ignorance on the issue.

For instance, it is a safe bet that the vast majority of Tifton residents would not know where to take their spent rechargeable batteries for recycling though half a dozen in-town businesses (ALLTEL, Wal-Mart, RadioShack, Short and Paulk Supply Company, Hasty's Comm. & Electronics Inc., and US Cellular) are capable of accepting recyclable batteries.

Businesses such as these often send the spent batteries to INMETCO (International Metals Reclamation Company), whose recycling process has been hailed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the "best demonstrated available technology" for recycling NiCD (nickel-cadmium) batteries.

Widely publicized education on this issue is obviously our most powerful untapped weapon against battery-powered environmental destruction. Of course, this method requires funding and neither governments nor any lesser entities seem ready to donate portions of their incomes to such an effort until the damage done becomes extensively evident.

The current trend among environmentally based battery researchers focuses on improving battery efficiency and substituting more environmentally friendly components for the harmful heavy metals reactants. This movement is being commonly referred to as a search for "greener" batteries.

One such possibility is the zinc-air battery, which utilizes existing oxygen to generate energy. It contains no toxic compounds, and zinc is considered to be one of the more environmentally benign metals. Unfortunately, constant contact with the air limits the battery's potency, but AER Energy Resources in Georgia have been perfecting a "Diffusion Air Manager" to correct the problem.

One of the more popular rechargeable batteries, nickel-cadmium, is also one of the most environmentally harmful. Besides the presence of cadmium, NiCd batteries, as well as nickel-metal hydride batteries, contain cobalt, which can cause asthma and pneumonia and is considered a possible human carcinogen.

Cobalt is a by-product of nickel manufacturing and is used in batteries to pick up electrons. It has recently been discovered that tin, a less harmful element, can be used in place of cobalt.

Other battery research involves the possible use of ocean floor bacteria (Geobacteraceae) as an energy source. Their use of electrons could be used to generate electricity. Scientists are also exploring the submicroscopic world for innovative ways to store energy in batteries, but both studies are still in the experimental stages.

It is important for governmental agencies to recognize the value in such advances in battery technology and to continue funding similar research into other power source options within the realm of environmental conservation. The public must also be made aware of such discoveries, in order to speed the transition to "greener" batteries.

With public awareness on these issues come other financially based options, such as charging consumers a deposit fee on batteries that can be reimbursed upon the battery's return for recycling or charging consumers an additional tax on batteries and providing them with a small monetary incentive for turning batteries into a proper recycling collection point.

The U.S. government, battery production companies, researchers, and recycling corporations are really dropping the ball by failing to involve the public in our rechargeable batteries' threat to the environment. On issues of environmental health, public opinion is a powerful and necessary tool.

Article Tools