Page 403 - Battery Reference Book

35/4 Alkaline manganese primary batteries
Table 35.2 Applications growth rates for different types of primary battery in cameras since 1966

I967 I969 1971 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980
Alkaline manganese 16.5 18.0 21.3 23.4 21.9 15.3 13.0 12.0
Mercury-zinc 10.4 15.2 13.5 22.1 19.5 9.3 5.5 4.0
Silver oxide-zinc - - - - 56.0 41.0 21.5 25.0

4

.

~
1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 19791980
Approximate launch year
Figure 35.1 Cumulative growth rate of photographic applications of primary batteries, 1867-1980

Table 35.2 shows applications growth rate by sys- the curves with a reasonable assurance of accuracy.
tem. Three points are of interest: The projected growth rates and the consequent new
applications are added to Table 35.1, bringing the
1. The growth rates for both alkaline and mercury figures up to 1980.
batteries peaked between 1972 and 1974. Detailed analyses carried out by manufacturers fore-
2. The growth rate of mercury battery applications cast that, as far as camera applications are con-
is declining more rapidly than that of alkaline cerned, the popularity of alkaline batteries with camera
batteries. designers will continue to increase, and so will the
3. The growth rate for silver oxide batteries, although popularity of silver oxide. The corresponding decline
declining, is significantly higher than for either in applications support for mercury batteries is already
mercury or alkaline batteries. drastic, falling at roughly the same rate up to 1980,
when only one in seven new camera applications
Figure 35.1 shows that 13 out of 14 of the growth required a mercury battery. One of the primary causes
rates listed in Table 35.2 are consistent with long-term is not lack of battery performance but the developing
effects, which means that it is possible to extrapolate worldwide antimercury lobby.