Rechargeable Batteries: Waste Of Money?

Rechargeable batteries are considered a bad investment because they are rarely cost-effective. They can cost more than twice as much as single-use batteries. However, if you use them properly, they will save you money in the long run because you can recharge them hundreds of times.

Rechargeable batteries are best suited for devices that draw a large amount of power over a short time. Single-use disposable batteries are better for products that have a low energy pull over a prolonged period of time and are replaced infrequently, such as smoke detectors or TV remotes.

Rechargeable batteries are more expensive than single-use batteries

Rechargeable batteries can be three to four times more expensive than single-use batteries. However, this higher cost is offset by the fact that rechargeable batteries can be used hundreds of times, providing much better value in the long run. Single-use batteries, on the other hand, are a "use and dispose" product, which means that you will need to continually buy new ones, increasing the overall cost.

Another factor to consider is the shelf life of single-use batteries. They can last up to 10 years from the manufacturing date, whereas rechargeable batteries may need charging after 12 months if they haven't been used. This means that single-use batteries can be more convenient and cost-effective for devices with low power requirements or those that are only used occasionally.

In summary, while rechargeable batteries have a higher upfront cost, they are more cost-effective in the long term for devices with moderate to high power requirements. Single-use batteries, on the other hand, may be more suitable for low-power or infrequently used devices due to their longer shelf life.

Rechargeable batteries have a lower voltage rating than single-use batteries

For example, in a DAB radio that uses four batteries in series, the voltage difference between four alkaline batteries (6 volts total) and four rechargeable batteries (4.8 volts total) can result in reduced performance. However, it is important to note that this voltage difference may not be a significant issue in most devices. The average output of single-use batteries is similar to that of rechargeable batteries, as the voltage of single-use batteries decreases over time.

Additionally, rechargeable batteries have improved significantly over the years, becoming more reliable and longer-lasting. They are now made with nickel-metal hydride (NiMH), a more efficient material than reusable alkaline, and are chemically sealed to prevent leakage. These advancements have made rechargeable batteries a more attractive option for many devices, as they can power devices for longer and are more cost-effective in the long run.

While the voltage difference can be a consideration when choosing between rechargeable and single-use batteries, it is not the sole deciding factor. Other factors, such as device usage patterns, rechargeability, and environmental impact, also play a role in determining the best battery type for a particular device. Ultimately, the decision to use rechargeable batteries depends on the specific device and its power requirements.

The upfront cost of rechargeable batteries is high

The high upfront cost of rechargeable batteries means it can take a long time to recoup your investment. For example, it would take nearly seven 18-month periods, or more than 10 years, to get your money's worth from using rechargeable batteries in a keyboard and mouse. This doesn't even take into account the cost of electricity to recharge the batteries, which further sets back the payback period.

However, rechargeable batteries can save you money in the long run if you use them in devices that require frequent battery changes. If you have to change the batteries in a device every 30 to 60 days, rechargeable batteries can save you a lot of money. Examples of cost-effective devices to power with rechargeable batteries include wireless gaming controllers, point-and-shoot cameras, and kids' electronic toys.

Rechargeable batteries can become weak and unpredictable with age

The performance loss of a battery is a natural part of its usage and ageing process. However, this decline can be accelerated by a lack of maintenance, harsh field conditions, and poor charging practices. For example, improper use can enhance self-discharge, which occurs when a battery loses charge over time, even when not in use. While all batteries are affected by self-discharge, nickel-based batteries exhibit a relatively high rate of self-discharge. At ambient temperature, a new nickel-cadmium battery can lose about 10% of its capacity in the first 24 hours after charging. The self-discharge rate then settles at about 10% per month. Higher temperatures also increase self-discharge substantially.

Additionally, rechargeable batteries may not always be the most cost-effective option. For devices with low current draws, such as wall clocks, smoke detectors, and radios, it can take years to reach the payback period if using rechargeable batteries. In some cases, it may take over 10 years to recoup the investment in rechargeable batteries and a charger. By this time, the rechargeable batteries may no longer effectively hold a charge.

However, rechargeable batteries can still be a good investment for moderate to high current-draw devices that require frequent battery changes. In these cases, the ability to recharge the same batteries can result in significant cost savings over time. Examples of devices that are well-suited for rechargeable batteries include wireless gaming controllers, point-and-shoot cameras, and kids' electronic toys.

Rechargeable batteries are not suitable for low-current-draw devices

Rechargeable batteries are not always a good investment, especially for low-current-draw devices. While rechargeable batteries are environmentally friendly and reduce waste, they are not always cost-effective.

Low-current-draw devices, such as wall clocks, smoke detectors, radios, thermostats, emergency flashlights, wireless keyboards, and mice, consume electricity at a slow rate. As a result, it would take years to reach the payback period if you used rechargeable batteries. For example, consider a wireless keyboard and mouse. A set of eight standard AA batteries might cost $8 and last for 18 months. In comparison, five good rechargeable AA batteries and a charger might cost $65. It would take over seven 18-month periods, or more than 10 years, to get your money's worth from using rechargeable batteries in these devices. After 10 years, the rechargeable batteries might not hold a charge effectively anymore, and you would need to purchase new ones.

Therefore, rechargeable batteries are not a suitable or cost-effective option for low-current-draw devices.

Frequently asked questions