PDA

View Full Version : Fuji environmentally friendly AA batteries



bascom
01-05-2009, 01:56 PM
Fuji says they contains no environmentally harmful elements, and the digital alkalines are suitable for digital cameras because they are powerful and long lasting. But I don't see specifics about that last claim. How powerful and long lasting? If it's all true these sound good for $6 per pair.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html#fuji_enviromax

http://www.greenfuji.com/

Visual Reality
01-05-2009, 02:42 PM
Alkaline?

What's the point in making an "eco-friendly" alkaline that has to still be thrown away? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Sorry, I'll stick with my Eneloops. I can recharge them hundreds of times (Sanyo claims 1,000) each instead of throwing them away after their first use. Isn't that eco-friendly?

JTL
01-05-2009, 03:33 PM
Alkaline?

What's the point in making an "eco-friendly" alkaline that has to still be thrown away? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Sorry, I'll stick with my Eneloops. I can recharge them hundreds of times (Sanyo claims 1,000) each instead of throwing them away after their first use. Isn't that eco-friendly?+1 on that!

Visual Reality
01-05-2009, 06:07 PM
While I appreciate their efforts (we throw way too much s*** away and we only have so much earth to pile it up on), I just don't understand the point of using the R&D on alkalines?

Paradox
01-06-2009, 02:04 AM
I'd suggest alkaline will make them more money as consumers have to re-buy when the batteries fail. Therefore, calling them 'environmentally friendly' (Which sounds like a pretty ridiculous thing to call a disposable battery :rolleyes:) will help to draw over customers and make more money. After all, the main aim of most businesses is profit.

bascom
01-06-2009, 07:56 AM
What's the point in making an "eco-friendly" alkaline that has to still be thrown away? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Since it doesn't contain harmful material, what is the harm in throwing it away? Just because it takes up landfill space?

Visual Reality
01-06-2009, 01:18 PM
Since it doesn't contain harmful material, what is the harm in throwing it away? Just because it takes up landfill space?
And used up finite resources that are now thrown into a pile, yes.

What do you have against rechargeables?

bascom
01-08-2009, 09:17 AM
Yes rechargeables are still the best for cameras. I have nothing against them.

Visual Reality
01-08-2009, 02:01 PM
I didn't think so, but it sounded like you were saying these were a good deal at $6/pair. Then when they are used up I have to buy them again? Then again, and again? How expensive is that going to get and how many am I throwing in a landfill? Multiply that by millions of people doing the same and when is it going to end?

Nothing personal against you...I just hate the waste that we turn our backs to.

Rhys
01-13-2009, 02:36 PM
I can't wait for the day they can produce cameras that consume so little power that we don't need to use batteries - they'll just have capacitors charged by gravity generators - the kind of gravity generator in the Seiko Kinetic series of watches. Simple body movement will be enough over the day to charge it to use through the day.

Visual Reality
01-13-2009, 04:54 PM
The day we have SLR camers without any moving parts - that arm/mirror assembly takes juice.

Don't think we could power a sensor for video for very long without a battery of some kind though.