Recharged energy ignores larger health issues of lead.
The disposal costs and health hazards of reusable batteries should not be overlooked.
An article in The Economist points out the technological pros and cons of rechargable lead batteries. The tripled recharging capacity of the newer lead-acid/carbon (PbC) batteries – marketed by Axion Power – is noteworthy and clearly reported.
The quest for new energy technologies is driven by negative external forces associated with fossil fuel, namely carbon dioxide-associated climate change. However, new energy use technologies also should be measured by their relationship to environmental health – a point sorely neglected in this article.
To call lead-acid batteries “tried and trusted” is a mistake.
Environmental scientists, toxicologists, pediatricians and other health experts would hesitate – or outright deny – that lead is "trusted." Lead has been banned in paint and gasoline in the United States because it has large inherent health hazards, including a loss of IQ and an increased risk of aggressive and violent behaviors.
Reporting that “PbC batteries are durable and cheap to make” overlooks the cost of disposal that would prevent ecosystem and human exposure to the lead battery waste products. It also ignores the cost of the adverse environmental, health and social costs associated with improper disposal of PbC batteries.
