Can Beta Decay Power an LED Indefinitely?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wil3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Battery Building
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the feasibility of using beta decay to power an LED indefinitely, focusing on the theoretical aspects of energy generation from beta sources like potassium chloride and strontium-90. Participants consider the practicalities of constructing a circuit that could utilize beta decay energy for this purpose.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether beta decay can generate enough potential to light an LED indefinitely using potassium chloride and aluminum foil.
  • Another participant mentions the possibility of using a betavoltaic battery but doubts the efficacy of potassium chloride as a beta source.
  • Suggestions for alternative beta sources are sought, with one participant expressing frustration at the lack of information available.
  • Calculations are presented estimating that 190 GBq of K-40 would be needed to produce 40 mW of power, equating to 716 kg of K-40 or 6000 tonnes of natural potassium.
  • Another participant humorously suggests that mixing K-40 with phosphorous could produce significant radioluminescence, though this is challenged by a later reply that emphasizes the inefficiency of capturing beta decay energy for electrical current.
  • Strontium-90 is proposed as a more realistic beta source, with calculations suggesting that only 12 millicuries (87 micrograms) would be needed to achieve the same power output.
  • Further detailed calculations regarding the decay power and specific power of both K-40 and Sr-90 are shared, highlighting the differences in energy output and efficiency.
  • Participants discuss the challenges of using radioactive isotopes in betavoltaic applications, including the potential damage to semiconductor materials and the need for low-energy isotopes to improve power density.
  • One participant expresses enthusiasm for the concept of betavoltaics, noting their potential longevity compared to conventional batteries.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of using potassium chloride versus strontium-90 as beta sources, and there is no consensus on the practicality of generating sufficient energy to power an LED indefinitely. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach and the efficiency of the proposed methods.

Contextual Notes

Participants make various assumptions in their calculations, including the efficiency of energy capture and the properties of the beta sources discussed. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps and dependencies on specific definitions of decay power and efficiency.

wil3
Messages
177
Reaction score
1
Hello, I would like to start by saying that I know very little about nuclear decay, so please do not flame me if this is a silly question:

I am wondering if it is possible to generate enough potential to light an LED indefinitely using pure beta decay. Let's say the circuit consists of a beta source, such as potassium chloride, crushed up and mixed with a continuous piece of aluminum foil in such a way as to maximize the surface area that the potassium chloride touches.

Let's say that I then attached the aluminum foil to an LED, and connected the other end to ground. Is it theoretically possible that the electrons from the beta decay process could light the LED? About how much potassium chloride (such as salt substitute) would be necessary? I am not looking for efficiency, just a demonstration.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
It's possible to light an LED with a betavoltaic battery.

I don't think its possible to make a betavoltaic battery with potassium chloride and aluminum foil. Potassium chloride is not much of a beta source.
 
I was thinking about that- are there any other easily obtainable beta sources?
 
I don't know, I guess you'll have to do some research on wikipedia.
 
Wiki fails me on this front. Thank you very much for your reply.
 
A typical LED operates at about 2 V forward voltage and 20 mA forward current.
That's 40 mW of electrical power.

The beta decay energy of K-40 is 1.31 MeV.
(Let's assume that the antineutrinos don't exist and the electron carries off 100% of the energy.)

If we make an extra-conservative assumption that we can capture and use 100% of the beta energy, we need 190 GBq of K-40.

This corresponds to 716 kg of pure K-40, or 6000 tonnes of natural potassium.

:)
 
Haha. Assuming minerva is right...that's awesome.
 
minerva said:
A typical LED operates at about 2 V forward voltage and 20 mA forward current.
That's 40 mW of electrical power.

The beta decay energy of K-40 is 1.31 MeV.
(Let's assume that the antineutrinos don't exist and the electron carries off 100% of the energy.)

If we make an extra-conservative assumption that we can capture and use 100% of the beta energy, we need 190 GBq of K-40.

This corresponds to 716 kg of pure K-40, or 6000 tonnes of natural potassium.

:)

Yeah but if you took that 716 kg of K-40 and mixed it with an olympic-sized swimming pool of phosphorous you could light up a city with the radioluminescence. I think that just goes to show you how inefficient it is to try to capture betas for electrical current.
 
For a more realistic example, we might consider strontium-90 as the beta source.
Making similar extra-conservative spherical-frictionless-cow assumptions as per the above, to put 40 mW through the LED would require 12 millicuries (87 micrograms) of Sr-90, which is a much more plausibly sized radioactive source.
 
  • #10
minerva said:
For a more realistic example, we might consider strontium-90 as the beta source.
Making similar extra-conservative spherical-frictionless-cow assumptions as per the above, to put 40 mW through the LED would require 12 millicuries (87 micrograms) of Sr-90, which is a much more plausibly sized radioactive source.

That's with the secondary decay of Y-90, right? I came up with 174 μg with total specific power:
Pd (decay power) for Sr-90/Y-90 = (0.546 MeV/decay + 2.28 MeV/decay)
hl = 28.2 yr
N(t) = N₀ e^(-ln2 * t/hl)
N₀ = 1 decay/90 amu
Rd (decay rate) = [as t->0] (N₀ - N(t))/t = 5.014 TBq / g
Ps (specific power) = Pd * Rd = 2.31 W/g (0.446 W/g[Sr-90] + 1.864 W/g[Y-90])

QuantumPion said:
Yeah but if you took that 716 kg of K-40 and mixed it with an olympic-sized swimming pool of phosphorous you could light up a city with the radioluminescence.

I don't think so. For the same calculations above, K-40 has a specific power of:
Pd (decay power) for K-40 = (1.31 MeV / decay)
hl = 1.2483 Gyr
N(t) = N₀ e^(-ln2 * t/hl)
N₀ = 1 decay/40 amu
Rd (decay rate) = [as t->0] (N₀ - N(t))/t = 271.61 kBq / g
Ps (specific power) = Pd * Rd = 57 nW/g
Po (output power) = Ps * m = 57 nW/g * 716 kg = 40 mW

40 mW would not light up a city (and is not surprising, as 40mW was the target to which the 716 kg was aimed) - and that's even assuming that the phosphor used (which, ironically, would not likely contain any phosphorous) is 100% efficient in converting induced energy into light.

The unfortunate thing about betavoltaics is that the higher their power density desired, the more radioactive the isotope you have to use to get it, and the more damage you are going to do to your semiconductor matrix.

As such, most of the research in this area is in induced beta decay of low energy isotopes (e.g., if you could make K-40 decay quickly, rather than over billions of years, you'd get some nice power density, and you'd have some control over dissipation), and in making beta-damage-resistant semiconductors (so that the cells will last at least a half-life of the fuel).

Anyway, I love them conceptually; a Lithium-Ion battery gets about 0.34 W/g, so, even with low efficiency and mass sacrificed to semiconductors, you could basically exploit the laws of physics to have a battery you'd have to replace once in 20-30 years. Not only that, but it provides a valuable destination for one of the more concerning components of spent nuclear fuel.

Neat, right? Totally worth the research money.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
10K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K