Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Nuclear Batteries 452

Posted by michael from the do-not-ingest dept.
An anonymous reader writes "IEEE Spectrum has an article on using radioactive material to create tiny batteries."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nuclear Batteries More

Nuclear Batteries

Comments Filter:

  • Unknown Error In The Submission (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) * <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Monday September 27, 2004 @07:59PM (#10368001) Homepage Journal

    Oh goody. Now all the uninformed environmental saviours of humanity can all hear the word "nu-cu-lar" and start jumping up and down and spasming.

    I can't wait until this comes out. I'd be afraid to push the technology for fear that some moron would try to regulate it into oblivion or ban it outright just because it uses a nuclear energy source.

    Never mind the incredible jump in effeciency to reduce used landfill space. Never mind the chemicals that are in current solutions, what with the fact that they're highly dangerous and all. This is NUCLEAR people! Fear it!

    Maybe I'm just being pessimistic... but I fear that legitimate, useful technologies like this will be blown away by wannabe "do gooders" before they get a chance to really prove just how much better a solution they are both environmentally and economically.

    • Re:Unknown Error In The Submission (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:06PM (#10368060)
      Yup, you're right. If you even read the article, it says that the thin layer of dead skin on your body is enough shielding.

      The emitted particles only travel 25 micrometers (!) once they hit humans.

      They just need a good PR department to call it something benign. Maybe PATRIOT batteries?
      • The layer of dead skin blocks it outright. The radiation can only travel 25 micrometers through most liquids.

        • Re:Unknown Error In The Submission (Score:4, Informative)

          by Aglassis ( 10161 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @09:03PM (#10368510)
          You said: " The layer of dead skin blocks it outright. The radiation can only travel 25 micrometers through most liquids."

          This is correct, but misleading. An alpha particle (a helium nucleus) has a charge of +2e. This makes it difficult to travel through dense matter as it will quickly loose its kinetic energy (typically about 5 MeV range--normal matter on Earth has about 0.025 eV) by being scattered by electrons in the absorbing material (note that chargeless particles like neutrons or neutrinos have very large ranges in matter). Therefore, it's energy will be dispersed throughout the matter that slowed it down. For living cells this amount of energy is enough to kill the cell or cause some reaction that will cause the cell to mutate (where it may survive on mitosis or die). Obviously this is not a concern for dead cells.

          If the alpha emitter is volatile or made into a dust, it can be inhaled. In this case, your respiratory system is affected. Additionally if it is ingested, your gastrointestinal system is affected. So obviously the greatest concern in the design of this battery is how its containment prevents it from being released. Logically if the alpha particle can't penetrate your dead skin cells, it won't penetrate a thin containment shield. If the containment breaks down and particles are easily disolved in water or break up and become dust easy, there is more concern about the safety of this device.
      • Maybe PATRIOT batteries?

        No, no, no. Earth Batteries (tm). Packaging; green. Lots of green.
        • No, no, no. Earth Batteries (tm). Packaging; green. Lots of green.

          Day glo green?
          Chernobyl green?
          Glow in the dark green?
          Puke green?
          I can see lots of ways the whole green thing might not work out in our favor on this one.

          Mabey they can bring back the "duck and cover" turtle from the 50's with an eco friendly spin from Madison Ave. to enlighten the youth of today.

          This post is an attempt at humor. Any resemblance to a troll is purely coincidental

      • Re:Unknown Error In The Submission (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:29PM (#10368256)
        Any alpha emitter is stopped by the skin. That's not the problem.

        The problem is if and when the contents of the battery get mixed into anything that you ingest, including air, water and food. This could happen by discarding the battery where eventually it corrodes and releases its contents, incinerating the battery, or intentional tampering and dispersal or poisoning by evildoers(tm).

        Ingesting alpha emitters can create a serious cancer risk. Once they're inside you, the particles only need to travel a few microns before they hit some critical part of a cell.

        • Re:Unknown Error In The Submission (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DoubleD ( 29726 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:41PM (#10368334)
          The problem is if and when the contents of the battery get mixed into anything that you ingest, including air, water and food. This could happen by discarding the battery where eventually it corrodes and releases its contents, incinerating the battery, or intentional tampering and dispersal or poisoning by evildoers(tm).

          As opposed to alkaline batteries which are perfectly safe to break, drink, or eat.

          So there is a risk, what else is new, there are many other dangerous, nasty, evil chemicals and products that we safely use each day without killing ourselves. Careful design and suitable precautions can do wonders.

    • Re:Unknown Error In The Submission (Score:5, Funny)

      by nocomment ( 239368 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:12PM (#10368108) Homepage Journal
      just think you can power your iPod with a nuclear battery, and listen to it with all FOUR of your newly formed ears! Portable 3-d stereo baby! ;-)

    • Re:Unknown Error In The Submission (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bobhagopian ( 681765 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:26PM (#10368227)
      Amen. 99% of anti-nuclear activists don't have a clue what they're talking about. I fondly remember the massive protests when hospitals debuted nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI). Never mind that the nuclear part of NMRI had nothing to do with nuclear reactions, the mere inclusion of the word was enough to spark large-scale protests. (At least until some guy had the clever idea of dropping the N from NMRI.)

      Anyway, take from that history lesson what you will. Is nuclear energy perfect? No. Is it better than any other energy source out there (with the possible exception of wind)? Yes.
      • Is it better than any other energy source out there (with the possible exception of wind)? Yes.

        The part that I think people have a hard time understanding is this: large amounts of energy is dangerous.

        There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you're generating megawatts of power, you're using something that could kill a lot of people. The only difference between nuclear materials and convential chemicals is that nuclear allows us to get more power for less materials. We could achieve explosions of similar magnitudes with TNT, but who wants to be hauling around hundreds of tons of TNT when a bomb only a few tons in size will do the same thing?

        • Re:Unknown Error In The Submission (Score:4, Informative)

          by carlos92 ( 682924 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @11:37PM (#10369772)
          But this won't explode. It stores a lot of energy, but the POWER (energy/time) is very low. It's not like the wall outlet, which can give large amounts of energy in a very short time.
          The article says that it could be used to trickle charge rechargeable batteries. Think of it as a battery "helper".
      • Well, I agree with you, but this made me wince:

        99% of anti-nuclear activists don't have a clue what they're talking about.

        Unless you can cite a source for a statistic, it's best not to use one - this one especially looks made up.

        I don't remember protests over (N)MRI, but I do remember being taught about it at university, and the lecturer explaining that MRI used to be called NMRI, but people didn't like the user of the word "nuclear".

        People can be stupid; over here in the UK, we had a massive outcry a

  • Is that a nuclear meltdown in your pocket? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 27, 2004 @07:59PM (#10368003)
    Or are you just happy to see me?

  • Wow... (Score:5, Funny)

    by larley ( 736136 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @07:59PM (#10368007)
    Imagine going to the store to buy some new Plutonium-Cadmium batteries?

  • Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)

    by halo1982 ( 679554 ) * on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:00PM (#10368009) Homepage Journal
    Yet another thing to lower my dwindling sperm count! Awesome!
    • "Yet another thing to lower my dwindling sperm count!"

      While this is not allways true with diferent counting systems, in this case there is no number lower then zero.

    • I got 4 kids, where can I get me some of these batteries? Now if they would only release nuclear mountain dew.
    • "Yet another thing to lower my dwindling sperm count! Awesome!"

      Well in your case that'd be sorta like it rotting your appendix away.
  • ...tracking how many people buy batteries, especially at Costco. A terrorist could walk in, buy several thousand cases of nuclear batteries, and have a dirty bomb by sundown.
  • I have an electric Delorean... rather a Neuclear-Powered electric Delorean!

  • Thanks, Energizer, for the Full Cavity Body Search (Score:5, Funny)

    by ThatsNotFunny ( 775189 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:01PM (#10368024)
    You thought you had problems going through airport security before!
  • Great news! Now combine these babies with the oldie worldie fuel cells for laptops and you'll REALLY have fun at the airport check-in desk.

    hehehehehe.

  • Well I'll be damned (Score:5, Informative)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@gmaYEATSil.com minus poet> on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:02PM (#10368033) Homepage Journal
    I've been harping on the idea of using nuclear batteries in cell phones and laptops for the past year or so. To date I've been called a variety of names for it, the least of which is "crazy". Yet here we are. Researchers are SERIOUSLY talking about using radioisotopes as power sources!

    In case anyone is wondering how these work, the idea is that the radiation from a small amount of radioactive material (NOT fissable material!) is captured and converted into electricity or other forms of energy. There is very little radiation emitted by these devices, because the radiation IS the power! Letting it escape would be poor economy.

    NASA has used these sorts of devices in spacecraft for 40+ years, starting with the Apollo missions. NASA's earlier designs produced about 75 watts utilizing a few pounds of Plutonium-238. Pu-238 was an excellent choice because it is useless for bombs, and has a short half-life (~80 years). With the public finally calming down about nuclear technology, NASA is now developing a more efficient device called an SRG. These devices get about 55 Watts per 600 grams of PU-238. This is way more efficient than current RTGs, like the ones used on Apollo.

    The primary downsides to Nuclear Batteries is that they are expensive and they don't scale. They are expensive because the nuclear materials are very rare and expensive to process. If we started using these materials in massive quantities, it's a certainty that the prices would drop. They are not scalable, because the amount of materials required means that a few hundred watts is the largest device one could construct with a reasonable size, weight, and expense.

    As for anyone who's worried about dirty bombs, I suggest you read this [llnl.gov] and this [spacedaily.com]. The threat has been greatly overstated, and is actually less effective than a regular bomb. The real problem is the issue of keeping the materials out of landfills. Even today, there's a big problem with Lead, Cadium, and other dangerous materials ending up in landfills. Radioisotopes wouldn't be much worse, but there is an upper limit on how much you want to add to the sub-soil.
    • The primary downsides to Nuclear Batteries is that they are expensive and they don't scale.

      They're also not rechargable :p
    • 55 watts eh? Seems I read the P4 from Intel radiates something like 73 watts!!!

      I always knew the P4 was a dog power wise - but its nice to know that the nuclear battery you talk about is too small to run it!!! haha.

    • The real problem is the issue of keeping the materials out of landfills.

      I think the way to deal with that is to make them artificially valuable. Pay a deposit at the time of purchase, get a refund for turning one in. Make it large enough to be attractive, but small enough that the cost add isn't prohibitive. Say $10. That would be enough to discourage many from throwing them away, and if many throw them out anyway, you'd have people searching the trash with geiger counters to make a few bucks. Like bottle

      • Agreed. But the idea I've been presenting to people is to actually lease the batteries. At least initially, they'd be VERY expensive. If they were leased to people who could afford it, the costs could be spread over time, and severe penalties could be written into the contract for non-return of the device. Even if the device is broken, it needs to be returned.

        The actual mechanics would be the cheap part. The radioisotopes would cost thousands of dollars per device. As time goes on, the devices would be rem
    • The primary downsides to Nuclear Batteries is that they are expensive and they don't scale. They are expensive because the nuclear materials are very rare and expensive to process. If we started using these materials in massive quantities, it's a certainty that the prices would drop. They are not scalable, because the amount of materials required means that a few hundred watts is the largest device one could construct with a reasonable size, weight, and expense.

      Actually, the point of this article is batte

    • Check this out:

      Here:

      http://www.firebox.com/?dir=firebox&action=prod u ct &pid=6

      or Here:

      http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ca te gory=4783&item=5521655837&rd=1#ebayphotohostin g

      These are Trasers. The bright light comes from a radioactive source - in this case Tritium gas. This reacts with the inside of the glass, lined with phosphor. All this and a 10 year lifespan.

      Pretty neat. Not that you are allowed to OWN one in the U.S. yet, but the military's had them for quite a whi

    • Re:Well I'll be damned (Score:5, Interesting)

      by radtea ( 464814 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @09:19PM (#10368656)
      A couple of nW per mCi is going to have pretty limited usefulness. Even if they boost the conversion efficiency substantially (4% at the moment, so the max is 25 times) they're still talking about a miniscule amount of power for a non-miniscule amount of radioactivity.

      IAANP, and I've handled mCi sources, and treated them with considerable respect. Even pure beta-emiters like 63Ni (60-odd keV endpoint) generate significant flux of x-rays due to shake-off electrons and bremmstralung (fairly negligable). A mCi pure-beta source is going to be about the limit before you get significant levels of difficult-to-shield radiation from these effects.

      The k-shell x-rays from 63Ni (or rather, 63Cu, the decay product) are just under 9 keV, which can be shielded with a bit of lead, but enough that you're talking about a battery that is mostly shielding. You very rapidly burn the size advantage.

      And then there's the disposal issue--these things will wind up in landfills, just like every other radioactive source. For example, a typical (micro-curie) calibration source is aluminum-encased and about the size of quarter. I once had a student put one in his pocket, walk out of the lab, and almost spend the source in a vending machine. There is no reasonable protection against stupidity of that nature. And there's so much of it about.

      So while I think these things are potentially great for certain remote sensing applications, I don't expect to see one in my cell phone or lap-top any time soon now. If we were able to make a cell phone or laptop that could run comfortably on a mCi source, it would be able to run almost forever on a conventional battery, so the advantage of a radioactive battery is not at all clear.

      --Tom

  • teeny (Score:5, Funny)

    by ianmalcm ( 591345 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:05PM (#10368052)
    I nominate this story for shortest posted news item on /.
  • Some kind of reverse Peltier gizmo can't be used to create a solid-state nuclear battery?

    Or does it just not work this way?

  • Not only will the battery operated toys make noise and blink FOREVER, but entire meals can be prepackaged by the morning crew to self cook by lunchtime.

  • These are already in use for some applications (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you've ever used a night sight [trijicon-inc.com] you're using Tritium, of course. They are amazingly bright and they last for years. This article talks about using tritium. It has many advantages: it's very safe (the radiation doesn't penetrate skin) and very energetic. I've wondered why we don't see more tritium-powered devices. Maybe we will see them soon.

  • In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by FlimFlamboyant ( 804293 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:08PM (#10368078) Homepage
    Authorities in Chicago, Illinois have ordered the evacuation of the north shore after an iPod meltdown.

  • Not radioactively powered but a trickle charge (Score:5, Funny)

    by planckscale ( 579258 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:10PM (#10368092) Journal
    It looks like this mostly a development into boosting the charge of an otherwise ordinary Li battery. If it keeps my cell battery charged for over a month as opposed to every 4 days than I could care less if my ear mutates into a chicken wing.

    " Once these challenges are overcome, a promising use for nuclear microbatteries would be in handheld devices like cellphones and PDAs. As mentioned above, the nuclear units could trickle charge into conventional batteries. Our one-cantilever system generated pulses with a peak power of 100 milliwatts; with many more cantilevers, and by using the energy of pulses over periods of hours, a nuclear battery would be able to inject a significant amount of current into the handheld's battery.

    How much that current could increase the device's operation time depends on many factors. For a cellphone used for hours every day or for a power-hungry PDA, the nuclear energy boost won't help much. But for a cellphone used two or three times a day for a few minutes, it could mean the difference between recharging the phone every week or so and recharging it once a month."

  • This is slightly off topic but also relevant looking at the other posts which seem to be concerned abt the radioactive thing.

    I dont know if many people know that Boeing used radioactive Uranium in the 747 -100 in the stablizer (or somewhere else .. I am not very sure). They wanted something with density and tungsten alloy (which they use now) was more expensive than U238 which was the wasted byproduct of power stations. They took care to sheild it and it had lots of warnings abt it being radioactive and e

  • Don't they already... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NeuroManson ( 214835 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:17PM (#10368162) Homepage
    Use batteries like this in pacemakers?

  • "My Child Swallowed WHAT?" (a rant 8-) (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IBitOBear ( 410965 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:20PM (#10368181) Homepage Journal
    Yumm... in other news, liability law enters a whole new realm of stupid.

    Most of the proles have been blisfully un-aware of the use of "nuclear bateries" (etc) in our space program. In those cases it was mostly a exercise in thermeonics, which is perhaps slightly different than this "documented" breakthrough, or maybe not, but there you go.

    How out-of-the-public-mind is this? Google for thermeonics. Two entires. No wonder there isn't any funding.

    Meanwhile, particle-in electron-out technologies are not all that radical. Things like the solar panels are based on this sort of thing.

    So we have an announcement that what we can do big we may be able to do to nanotech scales. How new, how fresh...

    But there will be hue, and there will be cry, and much gnashing of teeth will come across the land as those who cannot understand take umberage from the words of those who check facts. "That is radio active! We must not have it. Now give me some of that cadmium enriched tap water the government says is good for softening over-strong bones..."

    So great technology, but we can't even get decent breeder reactors in this country. We arn't smart or "brave" enough, or perhaps we have had so many less-than-trustworthy "officilas" that we know we dare not let the usefully dangerous things near our lives. Leave the cutting edge nuclear research to the cowardly French...

    So summon NIMBY and marvel as our lawyers stamp this technology, and any other technology that sounds even vaguly provocative, out in the persuit of the great god "what about our children?"

    Apparently they don't deserve to survive because their PARENTS can't take the simple responsibility to to keep their kids from eating the computer... 8-)

    So yea, great advance in science, all the benefits will be lost to the litigous masses. What is the point of a 1 millimeter chip if it has to wear a ten-inch warning label?

    You just wait and see... 8-)

    [For those who missed the subject line, this was a RANT... get a clue before you take me to task... 8-)]

  • Random thought here... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Master Control P ( 655590 ) <ejkeeverNO@SPAMnerdshack.com> on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:22PM (#10368191)
    Would it be possible to use something that undergoes Alpha decay (say, Radium or Polonium), and convert it's moving charged particles directly into electric?

    In short, you take a small amount of the radioactive substance and wrap all but one face in a lead shield, only allowing alpha particles out one face. Place a wire coil around that face, voila... moving charge (alpha particle) induces voltage and current in a conductor (coil). Insulate the coil, and draw power off it's ends. Place a little endpoint for the alpha particles to hit that's grounded to the radium/lead sample, so it can recombine into helium.

    Sounds good... can someone with more physics knowledge than I poke my idea full of holes? What kind of coupling efficiency/energy output/conversion efficiency/helium generation could one expect?
    • Oh yeah... When the hippies start getting all foamy at the mouth, tell them it's a fusion reactor... After all, it makes helium and electric, and fusion is a Good Thing.
    • RTFA, that should clear up your questions.

    • Re:Random thought here... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Quantum Jim ( 610382 ) <jfcst24&yahoo,com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @12:11AM (#10370080) Homepage Journal

      In short, you take a small amount of the radioactive substance and wrap all but one face in a lead shield, only allowing alpha particles out one face.

      One possible problem, to form a narrow alpha-particle beam for small devices, a small slit or hole has to be used. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle shows that the range of (normalized) highly probable momenta will be large since the range in location is small. This means that some particles will be fast and some will be slow; however, the actual event is hard to predict.

      Since kinetic energy is proportional to the momentum (squared), your device will produce energy in hard-to-predict spirts. You can calculate an average energy; however, that applies only after a large number of particles go through your device. That's one reason why these kind of devices work well as trickle-chargers yet poorly as generators.

      Another problem is that you lose 5/6th of the particles from the device, or more. This is because the probability of a radioactive atom emitting a particle in a specific direction is relatively uniform. However, only one face of the material is unshielded to the device. So particles most will hit the shielded face. One one face, 5/6th of the total area, will have a flux out.

      Place a wire coil around that face, voila... moving charge (alpha particle) induces voltage and current in a conductor (coil). Insulate the coil, and draw power off it's ends.

      When you extract energy from the particle's kinetic energy, it will slow down. When it does, it will emitt electromagnetic energy, breaking it furthermore. All this energy is not converted into electrical energy in your device.

      In the article, two methods are getting energy were tried. In the first device, the scientiests use a material that emitts beta particles - electrons - and injected them directly into a pn-junction of a semiconductor device. Normal semiconductor devices (i.e. diodes) work by moving electrons to unfilled energy levels in one substance (p-material) from filled energy levels in another substance (n-material). Moving electrons means a current forms.

      This is usually induced by thermal or EM energy. In this case, the radioactive element emitts electrons directly into the semiconductor. The imbalance causes a current to form through the junction. This can be miniaturized well. It also is not as sensitive to the direction that beta particles are emitted as your device.

      The second device uses a (really small!) lever attached to a piezoelectric material. Piezoelectric crystals produce electric current when stressed or vibrating. (The reverse is also true; hense why the crystal in your digital watch creates the ticks for the clocks.) The lever gets hit by - and absorbs - beta particles emitted from the radioactive element. Since beta particles are charged, the lever aquires a negative charge and the element aquires a positive charge. This pulls the lever toward the radioactive element. When they get close, electron tunnel over the gap and return their charge to the radioactive element. Once uncharged, the lever spings back to its origional position. The movement of the lever causes the piezoelectric material to generate current.

      This things scientists and engineers create are truely fascinating! (...to me at least!)

  • They had Nuclear Powered Limbs [imdb.com] way back in 1974 [tvacres.com]! I specifically remember Steve hacking his nuclear battery out of his arm! :)

  • NASA has been building nuclear batteries for decades on deep space missions.

    We could use waste product from reactors to power smaller versions for home use.

    No, it would not be as efficient as using 'fresh' fuel , but its WASTE.. so its still cheap power for the masses..

    And if you build them small enough, they are safe... It would change the very way we live.. 'free' nearly unlmited portable electric power for everyone..

    I've been advocating this for years, but I don't expect to see it, due to the hold 'b
    • NASA has been building nuclear batteries for decades on deep space missions.

      >> The radiothermal generators you refer to required kilograms of Plutonium, and were the size of washing machines.

      We could use waste product from reactors to power smaller versions for home use.

      >> The waste from nuclear reactors generates, among many other things, a great deal of gamma radiation, which can only be stopped by ~3 feet of lead. The materials they are working with generate alpha and beta particle
    • What's to keep you from dumping a nuclear battery into the trash and generating "real" nuclear waste? Dangerous stuff -- the type that can leak and poison groundwater for example.

      How many consumers dump their rechargeables in the trash already rather than properly "recycling" or "disposing" them.
  • It's an interesting article, but it's ultimately a sales pitch for the researcher's efforts and commercialization. There's a distinct lack of balanced information, peer-review, or opposing opinion in the source article.

    It's tough to have an intelligent discussion on the safety of the proposed designs when we're only seeing one side of this story.....

  • Is this really something the public can accept? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by StateOfTheUnion ( 762194 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:37PM (#10368306) Homepage
    Remember all the worry about children swallowing small watch batteries several years ago (leading to battery compartments on nearly all young children's toys requiring a screwdriver or other device to open)? Now we can worry about our children swallowing nuclear batteries . . .

    Seriously, the technology is interesting, but if we can't even convince the general public to permit isolated quantities of nuclear material in bunkers that can withstand the impact of a 737, a containment history that very nearly 100%, and with failsafe systems that are now nearly impossible to circumvent, then how can we convince this same uneducated public to adopt nuclear batteries?

    If you told the general public that smoke detectors have a radioactive isotope, how many of them would throw them away?

  • 20 years ago I had a wristwatch whose glow was powered by radioactive tritium (Hydrogen-3). As the tritium decayed the nuclear particles struck fluorescent materials behind the watch digits and produced a nice glow. It was really bright, too, and I could use it as a makeshift flashlight to illuminate keyholes and such. The main problem was that there was no way to turn it off, it always glowed and was sometimes a bit of a nuisance in movies and other dark places.

    This new thing sounds great, a nuclear power

  • Pedantic gripe (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Michael Woodhams ( 112247 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @08:45PM (#10368370) Journal
    From the fine article: "As you reduce the size of such a battery, the amount of stored energy goes down exponentially. Reduce each side of a cubic battery by a factor of 10 and you reduce the volume--and therefore the energy you can store--by a factor of 1000."

    No, the amount of stored energy goes down polynomially (specifically, cubically), dammit! Must even science articles abuse the word "exponentially"?
  • Batteries (electrochemical cells) are chemical

  • There is significant environmental impact to this (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xenophrak ( 457095 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @09:21PM (#10368669)

    Here's the rub with this type of technology: you can't guarantee that people will recycle these things and they won't get destroyed and leech into the environment.

    I know that I recycle my Ni-Cd and Li-Ion batteries, but there are those that just chuck them in the trash. Most of the time, they are just incinerated, releaseing cadmium and other nasties into the atmosphere. Indeed, most incinerators have radiation detectors to stop the incidental incineration of radioactive material, but I'm not sure that I trust that everything works as planned.

    Also, how many times have you seen batteries discarded and run over by cars in the street. Granted, most of these cells would be perminantly affixed to the device that they are powering, but you know corporations, anything to make a buck. I would give it max 10 years before you start seeing universal Po-AA cells that power legacy devices.

    The other problem with using a radioactive source for your power is that if it does escape its confines, then it can easily become ingested. The largest potential risk from this exposure comes from alpha-emitters. They may be blocked by microlayers of dead skin, but if you swallow them they uptake and make residence in your soft tissue or bone and continue to irradiate local tissue for as long as they're active.

    I personally would veto this technology, it's hard enough to stop smoke detectors from going in landfills already, do we really need to put more nuclear material into the water supply?

    As an option, I would still like to see better solid hydrogen encapsulation for fuel cells. We already have capacity enough to generate a significant amount of hydrogen from plants like Solar 2 [ucdavis.edu] in the California desert.

  • Volta was a Johnny-Come-Lately (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GMFTatsujin ( 239569 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @09:47PM (#10368892) Homepage
    Acidic batteries in ancient Baghdad: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_11.htm [world-mysteries.com]

    The Persians may not have known why batteries worked, but it appears that they knew how to make them.

  • Odd approach. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @12:56AM (#10370396)
    What I don't understand is why they went with the electromechanical scheme that they used, instead of epitaxially depositing a big stack of P-I-N diodes and letting the ionizing radiation work its magic directly. The article mentions a single-layer diode test, but you want a big enough stack to sap charge from the entire trail left by the alpha or beta particle that's plowing through the device.

    The electromechanical scheme has the virtue of collecting almost all of the energy as (nominally) usable heat, but conversion efficiency stinks, from what I can gather. Junction efficiency won't be so hot either (for the same reason solar cell efficiency is poor - carriers are given more energy than required to overcome the band-gap), but not too bad (anything over 10-15 eV will just create secondary showers of lower-energy electrons).

    Can anyone familiar with these issues tell me what I'm missing?

  • First observation of electron decay (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cardbox ( 165383 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:32AM (#10371121) Homepage

    Hidden away in the article is a discovery that will revolutionize our understanding of particle physics and cosmology:

    Nickel-63 is ideal for this application because its emitted beta particles travel a maximum of 21 micrometres in silicon before disintegrating
    This must imply that there exists a lighter lepton than the electron. Goodbye, Standard Model!

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close