Energizer Batteries
A while ago I wrote to Energizer about an article I had read on-line. I didn’t put much effort into what I wrote. In fact, this is all I sent:
Please explain:
http://www.newstarget.com/PhotoTour_Energizer_Batteries_3.html
Basically, someone opened up an Energizer D-cell rechargeable battery and found that inside the big battery, there is a much smaller battery. Not only that, but the battery has a lifespan of only 2500mAh, which is comparable to other batteries (such as AA batteries) that are much, much cheaper. Surprisingly, I actually received a reply to my not so well-written inquiry. (I use an alias when doing stuff like this in order to track sources of spam. My name is actually Mr. Ebben.)
Dear Mr. Hajo,
Thank you for contacting Energizer and for your inquiry.
All Energizer NiMH batteries have the mAh capacity on the label. There is no deception concerning the battery capacity and the D size designation only represents the batteries physical dimensions. We have found that most D sized devices will work satisfactorily with the Energizer NiMH batteries and the rechargability of the product is a true advantage of this chemistry.
D size rechargeable batteries have historically used a smaller internal unit cell. The main driving force behind this design is to keep the battery affordable to the average consumer. High capacity rechargeable batteries are more expensive than our standard rechargeable D size battery due to the increased volume of materials needed. In addition, they require a higher capacity charger to deliver acceptable recharging times which are also more expensive. Our research indicates that the high upfront cost for the high capacity rechargeable batteries and special charger would discourage many users from trying these batteries.
Clearly a high capacity D size NiMH battery would be beneficial in certain applications but we have found that the market for this type of battery is minimal due to overall cost. Energizer will continue to evaluate this market and look for a cost effective opportunity for higher capacity NiMH batteries.
Thank you for contacting Energizer. If you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Wow. Well, first of all, this reply was much better than the one I received from Carl’s Jr. asking whether Hardees is superior because their logo advertises Charbroiled Thickburgers rather than Charbroiled Burgers (they said they’d contact me with more information and never did).
The Energizer reply does seem to make sense from an economical standpoint. It’s cheaper for them to sell lower-capacity batteries, regardless of the form factor. However, I really have to question whether these batteries are so expensive to make. I assume that Energizer still makes a hefty profit on their ~$12 rechargeable D batteries and that they’re trying to spin it so that it looks like the consumer is actually saving money.
In reality, many consumers probably don’t even know what ‘mAh’ is. They just think they’re getting a big battery. After all, shouldn’t a physically larger battery have more energy? That seems intuitive. Would it be impossible for them to make a higher-capacity battery and sell it for $12 and still make money? Well, I don’t have their R&D team so I can’t answer that question.
Finally, I also have to question whether a higher-capacity battery would actually require a “special”, “more expensive” charger. I will grant them that recharging a higher-capacity battery might take longer, but with a lower capacity battery, you’d just have to recharge it more often. Where’s the benefit?
This reply is very interesting. They seem to make a big deal out of it being economically unsound to sell higher capacity D cell batteries, but PowerCell offers a much higher mAh battery for the same or less than the Energizer D cells. Also, I am now curious about the historical idea that D cells were resized smaller cell batteries.. what would be the benefit of the D size then? None, in my opinion, why not use C’s then?
Comment by Peter Tomich — November 21, 2007 @ 7:41 pmIf the only difference is the form factor because making a battery that holds a bigger charge (tip: their AAA rechargeable holds 900mah while the duracell holds 1100 or so, and the duracell AA holds 2650mah) would be more expensive and scare the customer, why charge so much more for it?
Comment by Tom — November 21, 2007 @ 10:44 pmSend them back a picture of a laptop 6 or 9 cell laptop battery and tell them millions of people obviously found them to be affordable.
Comment by indy — November 21, 2007 @ 10:59 pmTheir response is polite, but I agree it is spin, it doesn’t really make sense in the context of your finding that, although it was many times more expensive than the other, inside it contained a smaller cell equivalent to the other less expensive one.
The argument about chargability makes the most sense there.
But they are avoiding the issue that they have a much higher margin on the large batteries than the small ones since they are both the same inside.
Comment by Dave Myers — November 21, 2007 @ 11:04 pmWay to call them out.
They argue cost effectiveness but it sounds like they want to make some money. Make small battery look like big battery, save money, charge same amount.
Comment by Derek — November 21, 2007 @ 11:10 pmalright so you have a lot of questions, which mainly boil down to your figgerin, on the other hand we have a large profitable company. I believe them.
Comment by Addam Madden — November 21, 2007 @ 11:12 pmI think a more ridiculous battery ripoff is photo batteries. Duracell charges $8 apiece for A123 Lithium batteries (one time use). Surefire makes them much cheaper, and just a dollar and some change each.
I think they’re becoming like the oil companies, gouging us for everything they can. The oil companies see the hybrid cars, fuel cells, etc. and are trying to make as much money while they still can.
Let’s face it, Energizer’s days are numbered. Name an electronic device that’s produced, where not one manufacturer doesn’t include an internal rechargeable battery… You probably can’t. The devices that use regular batteries are gradually being replaced with internal rechargeables, or at least removable ones. If cell phones had regular batteries, we’d all be screwed, let’s face it.
More and more devices are powered by rechargeable, modular batteries… not regular ones. The traditional battery companies are missing out, and gouging us.
Comment by Brad Anthony — November 22, 2007 @ 12:32 amThe one glaring oversight of this response is that the problem with their D batteries is not that they are low capacity, but that they are the same capacity as the AAs, but cost much, much more. How can they justify charging that much more for a little plastic casing? A few cents a battery, that’d be reasonable, but we’re talking 4 times the cost. Saving for the consumer is clearly not their goal.
Comment by James Aaron — November 22, 2007 @ 12:57 amI’ve noticed many “D” batteries (non-rechargeable) I buy seem to be strangely light compared to others. The light ones don’t last nearly as long either. I haven’t opened one up yet but I’d bet there’s a non-consumer - that is, no little nubbin on top - AA form battery inside. The only brand that comes to mind that I’ve never encountered a light “D” battery from is Duracell.
Comment by anonymous — November 22, 2007 @ 1:01 amIf you have one cell, let us call it Bob, that has high capacity and takes 24 hours to recharge and a second cell, let us call it Joanne, that has lower capacity and takes 4 hours to charge, it is quite clear that the usage patterns of the two would be considerably different.
With Bob, I would have to plan any usage 24 hours in advance. A flat Bob would be a real inconvenience delaying my task for a full day and possibly leading me to abandon or postpone my task or to use alternative, manual equipment. Obviously Bob would be very useful in certain tasks, where the cells are in continuous use and where a second set of cells can be kept charged whilst the first set are in use.
With Joanne, I need only plan my task 4 hours in advance. Finding Joanne empty would mean only delaying my task for a few hours and I would be much more likely to take on adhoc tasks, sticking Joanne in the charger whilst I partake of some lunch or pop to the shops.
So although the total charging time for the same amount of amp-hours may be identical (although I suspect they are not) to take advantage of this total I would need to have usage that is considerably larger than the amp-hours the smaller battery provides, i.e. a small task that requires less than the capacity of the smaller cell would involve a 4 hour charge with Joanne and a 24 hour charge with Bob, i.e. Bob’s capacity actually becomes a hindrance to my task and the only counter to it would be invest in charging equipment that could lower the charging time which we have already been told is more expensive.
Comment by Bob Holness — November 22, 2007 @ 1:25 am“In reality, many consumers probably don’t even know what ‘mAh’ is. They just think they’re getting a big battery.”
Perhaps the consumers should educate themselves then.
Personally I am happy that batteries still carry information about their capacity in SI units. I thought it would have been replaced with a more marketing friendly term like ‘contains 500 energomerters of POWER!” years ago
Comment by John Stowers — November 22, 2007 @ 3:06 amMetagg is tracking this post…
Find out what Social News Sites are discussing this post over at metagg.com…
Trackback by Metagg — November 22, 2007 @ 4:04 amThey get a lot of points in my book for giving such a detailed and (hopefully) honest response.
It seems to me that most people wouldn’t even admit that their product had any “cons”, (ie) that the capacity isn’t the biggest you’d ever want, that there is, in fact, the possibility of “high-capacity” D-Cells
Just my 2 cents
Comment by Jesse The Space Cowboy — November 22, 2007 @ 4:35 amIt’s a free market, go buy the competitors product with the higher rating. Read the label.
Comment by mordain — November 22, 2007 @ 4:55 amIt’s simple: keep educating users on mAh and what they’re getting, and you’ll force Energizer to change it or the competition will hurt them.
Comment by Habar — November 22, 2007 @ 5:28 amLet’s compare an automobile battery with a rechargeable Engergizer D battery, shall we?
An automobile battery is rechargeable, so it requires, I estimate, several hundred times as much ‘material’ but it only costs about twenty times as much to buy.
The average person owns a LOT more of these ‘miniature’ AAA, AA, C & D batteries (chargeable & nonchargeable combined) than car batteries so you’d think that this would favor charging a higher cost for a car battery than for ‘miniature’ batteries but, compared to them, car batteries are a lot less expensive for what they do.
Knowing what I do about marketing and advertising I’m inclined to suggest that Energizer (or Duracell) make batteries that are not a very good value for the money and that the only reason we see these two brands everywhere is because they have pretty tight ’shelf agreements’ with the grocery chains and hardware store chains.
A four dollar box of cereal has about four cents worth of grain in it - a one dollar bottle of softdrink has about two cents worth of sugar in it and I’m inclined to dare to think that a battery - rechargeable or not - has about five cents worth of ‘material’ in it.
If the price of grain were to double and increase the cost of the grain in a box of cereal from four to eight cents the cereal companies would not merely increase the price of cereal by four cents - they would add a dollar or two to the box. This is what has happened to softdrinks, too. In the 1950’s, when the purchasing power of a dollar was about 1/12th of what it is today, a softdrink was five cents, about 1/25th of what it is today. Softdrinks cost about double what they did in the 1950’s.
I suspect that the price we pay for Energizer (and Duracell) batteries is very much heightened by the fact that we are also paying these two companies the money they need to pay to the supermarket and hardware store chains for ’shelf space’. I also suspect that they could easily make much more efficient, longer-lasting, lower-priced batteries than they do. They know what the public will settle for, and how much the public will pay for what the public settles for. THAT’s the product they put in their packages and THAT’s what the letter from Energizer says to me.
Comment by Greg Mosher — November 22, 2007 @ 5:48 amI started reading the article with a whim of hope and then you dashed it.
Energizer’s response to you is perfectly adequate. In fact, if every company stood by this model we’d be in a much better world.
That being said, you response to their respectful and yet intelligent email is quite… for lack of a better word: lame. Whatever the price, the cost, the weight, all things being equal, the same battery of higher capacity will cost more. Period. Debating this is the kind of circular logic that yields to perpetual motion machines.
Their answer is perfectly legit: the battery clearly states 2500mAh. They say that they don’t see a market for higher capacity batteries. This debate is over.
As an aside, I’ve seen Duracel batteries at 2800 mAh. I had specifically gone to the store to get rechargeables and got the Duracels instead of the Energizers. So right there, I can see that the market itself is slowly creeping up. Back 10 years ago 2500 mAh batteries were specialty items in RC realms for example. You had to get them shipped from special companies…
And also, keep in mind that the battery format is not so much about capacity as it is about form factor. 50 years ago, when batteries had maybe 500 mAh in them a flashlight needed the gargantuan D size batteries instead of AAA batteries simply because technology wasn’t up to snuff.
Today, we have flashlights and Ghetto Blasters that still have the D format batteries. The requirement is mainly a mechanical design constraint by this point.
In fact, to finish up on my rant, this is almost comparable to chastising a CD company for not making their CDs higher capacity because “we all know that DVDs can get 8 gigs on them”… So Maxwell must be shafting us.
Comment by Another Pseudonym — November 22, 2007 @ 6:38 amThank you all for your thoughtful responses, and my apologies for making everyone wait so long to have your comments approved. I’ve decided to moderate comments after the fact rather than before, so anyone who replies now should see their comment right away.
Comment by Josh — November 22, 2007 @ 6:43 amI think that this answer is honest and good, in essence, the increased cost just won’t sell. Yes, charging a larger cell will just take longer, but a selling point of these things is the fast charge, so I suspect that’s what they mean. If you had a fast-charge full D cell, you’d need to stuff more current into the cell. More current means bigger everything, bigger everything means more money. More money means higher selling price.
Comment by Marty — November 22, 2007 @ 7:03 am@ Another Pseudonym - Sorry for letting you down. I was thinking about just posting Energizer’s response and keeping an “It is what it is” attitude about the matter, but I didn’t think that would be very interesting. I’m certainly inclined, in general, to agree with your comments. Thanks for replying.
Comment by Josh — November 22, 2007 @ 7:14 amFacts / replies to reddit comments:
In 1898 National Carbon Company introduced the first D cell battery. This battery style is way older than the Maglite (1979). The alkaline D cell is 19500 mAh. The alkaline C cell is 8000 mAh. So clearly the choice for size is all about power, or at least how long the light will last. You could always design a comfortable padded handle for any size battery.
Reply to the “let consumers decide” notion:
Comment by Peter Tomich — November 22, 2007 @ 7:26 amConsumers that buy brand name products do so via the notion that a brand name product (mainstream Wal-Mart stock) is trustworthy and better for all reasons meriting a high price. I doubt they are going to shop around just before Christmas for a set of rechargeable D cell batteries for a few hours and have them shipped when they could just snag a set at Wal-Mart or Best Buy. It’s not entirely fair to push blame onto a consumer. I’ve always hated off brand batteries for short life and leakage, and usually buy brand name batteries despite the price with the notion that spending more will result in better life span and quality, but these batteries do not honor that.
A note about batteries and chargers:
Battery chargers work by providing a slightly higher voltage than a discharged battery would have. That essentially forces energy into the battery, which stores it up for use later. The problem is that you can’t just connect, say, 1.5V to a 1.2V cell, because the cell will ingest energy at the highest rate the source can provide it. That sounds like a recipe for a nice, fast, charge, but the process has the side effect of producing heat, too much of which will damage the battery.
To get around that problem, chargers are built with a circuit that limits the amount of current to what’s safe for the cell. Most battery chemistries charge best in the neighborhood of 10% of their capacity. In other words, a 2000 mAh AA cell charges best at a rate of about 200 mA, and a 9000 mAh D cell does best at a rate of 900 mA. (There are high-capacity C and D cells available from battery supply houses. They run about $25 each.) You can charge the D cell in a low-rate charger designed for AAs, but it’s going to take more than four times as long to get a full charge. You can’t do the opposite, because a high-rate charger that thinks it’s charging Cs or Ds will happily feed a AA more current than it can handle safely. You may have noticed that the 15-minute rapid chargers that have appeared in the last few years have fans in them. That allows a higher charge rate by getting the heat away from the batteries.
Energizer’s claim about the economics of Cs and Ds is correct: the market just isn’t there for them. AAs and AAAs are far and away in the majority of batteries sold, so the economies of scale in manufacturing them are much greater. Cs and Ds are relegated mostly to flashlights, where the self-discharge rates on rechargeables make alkalines a better choice if you expect them to work after a year of being under the seat of your car.
–Mark
Comment by Mark — November 22, 2007 @ 8:29 amFirstly, your points are all valid and agreeable. However, two problembs bubble up. According to Amazon, two Energizer D NiMH cost $12.87. Four Energizer AA NiMH cost $12.00. All of them are composed of the exact same 2500 mAh cell. This follows your guides of production, the D’s and the AA’s are made of the same cell off the same assembly line using the same tech and the same R&D etc. The price is not even close, basically 2x for the D’s. Secondly, as you point out they perform terrible in flashlights because of discharge problem. So basically, once the consumer wastes their $12.87 and finds they don’t work very well in their flashlight they can throw them away and buy regular alkalines again. Basically, Energizer should not sell D rechargeables because they are a bad product to begin with. This is my spin on that logic, I love rechargables myself, in everything.
Comment by Peter Tomich — November 22, 2007 @ 9:04 amIn addition to the above:
They MUST increase the charge current. NiMH cells don’t trickle-charge well. In fact, most mfg’s like sanyo and gold peak actively discourage trickle charging in favor of a dV/t terminated fast charge.
Also, from what i’ve seen, most products that take “D” cells, and there aren’t many anymore, require 4 to 8 batteries.
Four tenergy D batteries go for about 50 dollars. Not many people are smart enough to realize that it’s not a bad deal, and a good portion of the rest simply can’t afford it. Not many people are willing to put 50 bucks in batteries in a flashlight.
Hell, “D” batteries aren’t even common for OEM purposes. Even EV’s and stuff use SubC.
Energizer D rechargeables are really mostly just legacy support.
Comment by sniper1rfa — November 22, 2007 @ 9:07 amOk,
Comment by Troy — November 22, 2007 @ 2:22 pmso im going to go out on a limb, and say energizer and duracell make inferior batteries. Who makes quality batteries? Please let me know for i would like to start purchasing thier batteries.
Try Maha/Powerex. I’ve been using their battery packs in two-way radios for years and they’ve been very good. Maha has a new product out called Imedion that claims ultra-low self-discharge, but I haven’t tried them yet. They also have 11,000 mAH D cells if you’re looking for capacity.
Sony’s “Stamina” AAs are pretty good, too.
And you’re right, Troy: I have a fistful of Duracell/Energizer AAs and AAAs. They’re great for about 25 cycles and and blow chunks after that.
–Mark
Comment by Mark — November 22, 2007 @ 4:57 pmJust to point out that having a larger mAh will not require you to always charge for 24hrs. If you need to use it for an emergency, you can always charge it for as long as you can and use it. A higher capacity merely indicates the maximum power it can store, and hence the maximum time required for full charge which is higher, but you can always quarter or half charge it and use it to meet your needs.
Granted, half-charging your rechargeables repeatedly can be damaging for them.
Comment by Snappy! — November 22, 2007 @ 7:15 pmMinnesota battery service listings…
[...] most intelligent people we”ve found, so obviously you”ll fit right in! F3172A - HP F2299A Battery::HP F3172A Laptop Battery 4400mAh,Cheap HP F3172A Batteries For Sale! 1 vote Vote Submitted by liushui2008_123 1 day ago If you want to [...]…
Trackback by Minnesota battery service listings — July 17, 2008 @ 2:12 amHi everyone this is my first comment and this site is very nice for me wish he all the best.
Comment by Martina — September 1, 2008 @ 9:13 pmI disagree
Comment by Derek — September 2, 2008 @ 4:37 amCan you give more info?