Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Atomic MEMS Battery has 50 Year Charge

Posted by michael on from the keeps-going-and-going dept.

notestein writes "Working for DARPA, a couple of Cornell researchers (Amil Lal, Hui Li ) have developed a battery that uses decaying nickel-63 to drive a flexing MEMS cantilever to generate electricity. They expect a production version to produce useful energy for at least 50 years."

9 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. Power supply? by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article mentions attachign a magnet to the lever to generate electricity as it moves up and down.

    If the movement is caused by electric charges, why not have the lever contact an electrode, and funnel the electric charge off through whatever it is you're powering, and then back to the isotope film? Surely that would be a more efficient way to harness the power...

    Or, for that matter, why does the arm have to move at all?
    =Smidge=

  2. It'll never happen... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just wait until the no-nuke freaks, flat-earthers, Nader kooks and other Luddites get a whiff of how this technology works. They'll try to scare the public into keeping this from becoming a reality.

    Of course we could really fry their minds by reminding them that the reason the earth is still hot inside is mostly because of radioactivity.

    Still, I think ignorance could be a factor in the public perception of this product. Of course, I'll be first in line to buy one.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    1. Re:It'll never happen... by global_diffusion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They'd better not call it "Atomic"

      Definitely not. I work in the Nuclear Physics Lab (now known as CENPA) at my university and I can't tell you how much shit I get from people. They go nuts when they hear the word "nuclear" (or nucular to them ;). It's sad that people don't even understand physics enough to know that nuclear physics is the physics of the nucleus (and related thingies, of course). So sad....

  3. In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics by cryptor3 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This technology is applicable to things as power hungry as cell phones or laptops. This power source is has good longevity, but not power density.

    The quantity of energy you'd get would be less than the energy of a decaying isotope, which is not very much. Even with advances in technology, this can't be very much. Furthermore, even if sufficient densities were achieved by mass producing cells, I'd keep an atomic MEMS laptop away from my lap unless I felt like nuking my nuts off.

    I strongly doubt that you would be able to (safely) generate enough energy from the radioactive decay of any isotope to power anything larger than a pocket calculator. Sure, nuclear waste gives off a significant deal of heat as it decays, but then you're talking about nuclear waste.

  4. possible future uses; and efficiency by WhiteChocolate42 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This power source would knock all of our current (no pun intended) Uninterruptible Power Supplies on their collective asses. If the power goes out, no worries, my server can stay on for 50 years... Also, in all seriousness, this seems like it would be the ideal power source for robots such as the "servant" variety that have been a staple of future homes in many science fiction stories. After all, it seems like a waste of time to have Robo-Jeeves plug himself in every night. The only obstacle that is obvious to me is the question of production efficiency; basically, how cheap is it to find/produce/refine large quantities of this Nickel isotope? If it takes a tremendous amount of power and time, that translates into tremendous expense, and decreases the likelyhood that we will ever see them in commercial products.

  5. Where does Nickel-63 come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Can this stuff even be produced in large quantities?

  6. How much/ton of the isotope? Is it safe as dust? by BerntB · · Score: 2, Interesting
    How much would it cost to generate enough for building a recharger for laptop batteries?

    If a lot of strong beta emitters were ground up and made into dust, would they be dangerous?

    (Doesn't Voyager and all other longterm probes to the outer solar system use beta emitter batteries?)

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  7. Plenty of energy, but not power - and units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    (Posting AC because I moderated other comments...)

    This gives an energy density of about 35 kW/hr per _gram_ over the lifetime of the battery.

    Two nits:

    1. The proper units are kw*hr, not kw/hr. Power is energy per unit time, energy is power times time. (Yes, this is slightly pedantic... until you realize how many people have NO IDEA what the units mean, and fail to understand a great many other important things as a result.)
    2. 35 KWH/gram over the life of the battery is still only 19 milliwatts per gram averaged over the first century, and that is assuming 100% conversion efficiency. The actual power density of these batteries is minuscule.
  8. Re:Plenty of energy here. by Guppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The nice thing about Nickel-63 is that the decay produces beta rays (high-energy electrons) and nothing else. This could be shielded by a thick sheet of plywood, or a thin sheet of lead. Most radioisotopes aren't nearly as friendly (there is usually gamma emission as the decay product sheds excess energy, which is difficult to shield against). [ObDisclaimer: I'm assuming that the lead also blocks the x-rays produced as the high-energy electrons smack into the shielding.]"

    The proportion of secondary X-rays (bremsstrahlung) generated by beta particles of a give energy is proportional to the atomic number of the adsorbing material -- so your best bet would be to use both, with the plywood facing the emitter and the lead on the outside.

    My experience is in the biological sciences, which use a lot of beta emitters for radiolabeling. We used commercially made beta shielding available from scientific supply places (VWR, Fisher, etc.), and they were all made of a plastic such as acrylic. I don't think I ever saw any heavy lead shielding anywhere in our labs.