citation needed. From mining over production to recycling, NiMH batteries are ecologically inferior to alkaline batteries. A breakeven and superior performance may only set in after many recharge uses which NiMHs may never reach (ageing, rare usage)

It's a bit odd to declare "citation needed" and then claim things like "rare usage" which just so happen to suit your argument, while ignoring things like, say, the fact that NiMH batteries mean batteries are only shipped to the end-user once.

I use NiMH batteries in all my thermostats, two scales, etc. Bought them 10 years ago or so. The thermostats get charged every few months and the scales every few weeks.

I think ~12 or so NiMH batteries have replaced, by this point, by rough back-of-envelope-math, thousands of of alkaline batteries.

Did it occur to you that probably one of the most energy-intensive parts of a AA battery's life is its transportation from factory to user? Which NiMH batteries only have...once? And most of that transportation is powered by non-renewable fuels, etc.

A quick check on GPT suggests that shipping the thing via ocean freight is going to be comfortably less than 1% of the carbon emissions of manufacturing. Batteries are really tiny, so they ship well, and they are really complex, so they are more difficult to manufacture than say a simple plastic toy.

I'm glad you are making use of your li-ion batteries, I'd love to see aggregate data on that. I know in my own personal life, rechargeable AA batteries usually get lost or forgotten before their third recharge for me. Climate wise, I'm probably net negative overall on my rechargeables.

But it's also kinda not the right thing to focus on for climate. Driving 50 miles in a gas car will cause a greater climate delta than manufacturing a battery. Eating 12 ounces of beef (300g) causes more emissions than manufacturing and shipping a battery. One international flight can be equivalent to several hundred batteries, etc