Battery that stays charged for 30 years.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of a battery that utilizes radioisotopes for power generation, specifically one that could potentially last for 30 years without recharging. Participants explore the feasibility, existing technologies, and safety concerns related to such batteries, with a focus on their applications in various fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants mention that batteries using radioisotopes do exist and have been utilized in space probes and remote navigational/weather stations, although they typically provide low power relative to their size and weight.
  • One participant describes three technologies for generating electricity from nuclear decay, including SNAP generators that convert heat from decay into electricity, a Soviet technology using thermal emission, and a semiconductor-based approach that captures energy from emitted particles, noting that the latter faces challenges due to damage from energetic particles.
  • Concerns are raised about the safety of using such batteries, particularly regarding the shielding of beta rays and their potential to produce soft x-rays when blocked.
  • Questions are posed about the energy density of these batteries, specifically the Wh/kg ratio, with a suggestion that this ratio may depend on factors beyond just the fuel used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of familiarity with the technology and its implications, but there is no consensus on the safety or practicality of using such batteries in everyday applications. Multiple competing views regarding the technologies and their effectiveness remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the performance of semiconductor-based nuclear batteries due to damage from emitted particles, and there is uncertainty about the specific energy density metrics related to these technologies.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring advancements in battery technology, nuclear energy applications, and safety considerations in energy generation methods.

blimkie.k
Messages
130
Reaction score
0
I "stumbledupon" this article this morning.

A battery that used radioisotopes and is powered by the decay of the radioactive material. Sounds like it would work. Is this legit? If so it seems like a pretty serious innovation. I'm sure this battery if developed for the public would have a lot more use then just laptops.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1PJfLa/www.dodevice.com/2007/10/02/one-laptop-battery-that-lasts-30-years-without-recharge/
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Yes they exist - they are used to power some space probes and used to be used for remote navigational/weather stations
They have very low power for their size and weight.
 
I've known of three technologies for generating electricity directly from nuclear decay. Back in the late 50's or early 60's, the SNAP generators were developed. They used the heat from the decay to heat one side of a thermo-electric module/modules which in turn produced electricity.

The Soviets had a technology using the decay to heat a column in a kind of vacuum tube such that thermo electric emmission delivered current.

Then, there is the holy grail of nuclear batteries which uses semiconductors (like solar cells) to capture energy directly from particles emitted by the nuclear decay. This sounds like the proposed technology. It has suffered a major setback though - the energetic particles damage the semiconductor crystal causing it to loose performance after a short while.
 
Though i didn't want one of those in my lap one hour a day. Or are the beta rays sufficent shielded?

Anyone know the Wh/kg ratio on these?
 
As I remember from Physics, Beta Rays are simply electrons which may be moving really fast. They don't have much in the way of penetrating power and find a sheet of paper (?) a challenge.
I suspect that in the process of being blocked, they produce soft x-rays, which in turn are easily blocked.

As for Wh/kg, I'm pretty sure that's determined by something other than the fuel :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K