Tiny 'nuclear batteries' unveiled

reply to post by LordBucket


Yeah you probably wouldn't ever use U-238 as a battery because it is a neutron/gamma emitter, meaning the sheilding would need to be about 6 feet of lead. You can't recharge nuclear batteries, the nuclear decay process isn't reversible. As long as beta emitters are used probably negatrons (e-), there shouldn't really be a problem with shielding or radiation hazards. You would probably get more radiation in ya from eating a banana or brazil nuts than handling the batteries.

reply to post by nuker123


www.abovetopsecret.com...

It looks like they use Sulfur-35. Thanks RoofMonkey.


Also, I just want to point out that the term "Nuclear Battery" is a very broad umbrella term that encompasses many different types of technologies. There is the Hyperion Battery which is a nuclear reactor that boils steam (relatively conventional), the RTGs in the Voyager probes which convert heat to electricity, and also these nuclear batteries (and more). They are all very different.

en.wikipedia.org...

And like I said, Sulfur-35 cannot be made into Nuclear weapons. Honestly it's such a shame that anything with "Nuclear" in it has such a bad public image. Nuclear has thousands of time the energy densities of anything chemical, I think it should be harnessed.

Yeah you probably wouldn't ever use U-238 as a battery because it is a neutron/gamma

Uranium 238 does not emit a whole lot of radiation, nor does it decay very fast (hence the long half life), so it is probably not viable for any form of Nuclear battery (or reactor). Shielding probably wouldn't be required either, for this reason.

If it was Uranium 232 I would agree.

[edit on 9/10/2009 by C0bzz]

Not a battery but a source of light.

Tritium Light

You can get them here

I guy I knew had one a few years ago and it is a neat little trinket. A little glow stick that last 10 years.

It is fascinating. Imagine a car that could run for 10 years and never need to be charged. If the technology were made to where they would be "accident safe" it would be something significant. The only thing is, making sure when the batteries are disposed of or recycled in some way, that they are not a threat to the environment. But the fact that they could last so long, no outside electricity needed to charge them, I mean that is a dent in pollution in itself. I know a lot of batteries end up in the dump, even though they aren't supposed to be there.

Bottom line, can these batteries be used and promote more good than harm? I mean, they are being used in pacemakers. What happens to the battery after the battery is finished?

Troy

Originally posted by anonamousantichrist
could be big news for the auto markets. i can see these being deal changers with regard to electric/battery powered cars in the future. i hope they handle it right, but i doubt they will lol.
AA

Putting radioactive material in a machine that will likely demolished in a collision? Not a good idea...unless you like cancer all over the place.

I've heard about something like this before...and I've always had the idea in my head...I say it's about darn time. Will we ever see these available for public use? Probably not, there's already damage to the environment from unrecycled batteries...just imagine unrecycled nuclear batteries with a far longer half-life.

I predict, if anything, some big companies buy the patents, sit on them, and we never hear of this technology again.

The TV-show Fringe is starting to seem more and more not like science fiction, but science fact.

Makes you wonder how much in that series that actually exists.

These aren't just being revealed, we knew about them for along time. A penny sized battery is just being unveiled as in they have made it and determined it works. I want those batteries now!

I seriously doubt these batteries will ever be available for public consumption. Some enterprising Boy Scout or terrorist would pry one open, releasing whatever radioactive substance was in them. Other would throw them out in the garbage, so that they'd wind up in landfills. After a few years of corrosion, they'd open, and again release radioactive stuff. It's just too dangerous.

Still, it would be nice to have those batteries. A million times the charge - that would really put a dent in the battery industry. Forget alkaline, forget rechargeable, you've got one that will last a long, long time...

Not all radioactive isotopes have a long half-life (some a few seconds). Sulfur-35 used in these batteries has a half life of 87 days (if a longer life is required then use something with a longer half life). I forgot all the decay equations, but these will not be significantly radioactive for any large amount of time. As for radioactivity, it really depends on just HOW radioactive they are (let's not forget smoke detectors contain Americium and Neptunium - all these same arguments apply to smoke detectors), and I suspect that any difficulties with crashes and tampering could be engineered out for at least, some uses.

Wonder how much these things cost, how much energy they actually put out, how far till they are in actual operation. In any case, this has the potential to be revolutionary, but I fear the irrational public reaction could kill it.

[edit on 9/10/2009 by C0bzz]

I can already see the headlines: "New Apple I-Phone battery explodes. America's mid-west wiped from map, owner sent into orbit.." .

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by zetamafia911

Unfortunately oil still reigns supreme

Yes it does, but it's days are numbered. Simply by virtue of the fact that we're running out of easy to get oil.

The next ten to twenty years are going to be make or break for the US. Either they get their storage and green technology act together, or they're finished.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by mckyle]

A wee off topic: Indeed. However, seeing the speed in which battery-technology goes, green energy is becoming mainstream, and all power companies want to be on the band-wagon, I am confident America will get there just in time.

I wonder how the world will look when the Middle East is no longer needed for oil for manufacturing&transport, but only for plastics and such. Could be interesting.
On-topic:A world in which small devices come with an in-built battery, lasting their life-time, would be a revolution on it's own.

Originally posted by anonamousantichrist
could be big news for the auto markets. i can see these being deal changers with regard to electric/battery powered cars in the future. i hope they handle it right, but i doubt they will lol.

cheers,
AA

Exactly something I was thinking there.

Might be a bit different in an accident scenario, may look something like this or worse.....



Ok, maybe I overdid it but surely some people see my point?

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
Also they have been used by the military for a while now and its just being 'unvieled'

emphesis given to quote :

Nuclear batteries have been in use for military and aerospace applications, BUT are typically far larger.

Originally posted by diakrite

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by zetamafia911

Unfortunately oil still reigns supreme

Yes it does, but it's days are numbered. Simply by virtue of the fact that we're running out of easy to get oil.

The next ten to twenty years are going to be make or break for the US. Either they get their storage and green technology act together, or they're finished.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by mckyle]

A wee off topic: Indeed. However, seeing the speed in which battery-technology goes, green energy is becoming mainstream, and all power companies want to be on the band-wagon, I am confident America will get there just in time.

I wonder how the world will look when the Middle East is no longer needed for oil for manufacturing&transport, but only for plastics and such. Could be interesting.
On-topic:A world in which small devices come with an in-built battery, lasting their life-time, would be a revolution on it's own.

A good point diakrite

The Saudis are worried about a paradigm shift in the way the world sources energy. This is why they are dragging their heals on opening up new fields. They don't want to get rid of their last reserves too quickly - otherwise - they've lost their cashcow.

This is happening now and it's really something that the US is fully aware of. Unfortunately Washington is hobbled by the spectre of political repercussions during what will be a painful transition period from oil to alternate energies and storage.

Nevertheless, I am sure that given the political will and vision, the US is in a position to ensure it's long-term global technology dominance as we pass from one energy epoch to another.

and another thing - i cannot find any hard facts telling me what the voltage of these " miracle batteries " is - what thier energy density is and maximum current draw

glib terms like ` 1 million times the power ` sound like pure hyperbole to me

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
and another thing - i cannot find any hard facts telling me what the voltage of these " miracle batteries " is - what thier energy density is and maximum current draw

glib terms like ` 1 million times the power ` sound like pure hyperbole to me

www.scribd.com...

Several thousand could be possible, but it needs more research.

[edit on 9/10/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz



Several thousands?? As in "volts"? Oi, no grabbing in your pocket for a fresh set then... Kr-pow..Fzzt...instant crisp..


On a serious note, it will be the Amperage that can be stored & delivered instantly, that makes this battery viable-or not- for electric cars(and no recharging is a major hurdle). Super condensators do this very well, however, they fall off pretty quick.

The trick with a good battery is, to keep the Voltage and Amperage on a certain level for as long as possible, before it falls off. NiCad , NiMh, Li-Po do this very well, hence their wider application in EV-technology.

I can not get from the linked paper what the exact draining-characteristics are, level? steep? slow decline?

I looks promising, but I, indeed, smell some hyperbole and fishing for funding.(not a bad thing though. Research like this is needed if we want to take oil out of the game)

[edit on 10/9/2009 by diakrite]

I can not get from the linked paper what the exact draining-characteristics are, level? steep? slow decline?

The article seems to indicate that the draining characteristics are very good. It is some time before we see if this actually true though....

It says says that several thousand times power densities can be stored...

And if a battery lasts years, then I don't see why not being abled to recharge would be a major hurdle..

[edit on 9/10/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by LordBucket


...the batteries that were used in the Voyager probe were built in 1977, and are expected to continue to generate usable power until at least the year 2025

Why is rechargability a concern?

Because without re-chargeable batteries, The voyager probe would have been dead a loooong time ago. The solar panels are constantly recharging the batteries on board. The reason it will die in 2025 is because it will be too far from the sun to get enough light to charge its onboard batteries. The are already so far away that they have had to start shutting down some sytems in order to keep it alive.


----------------------------EDIT------------------------

Wow, was I wrong here. The voyager probe actually uses a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator to generate electricity, not solar panels.

I learned something.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Tiloke]