Nuclear Batteries

An anonymous reader writes "IEEE Spectrum has an article on using radioactive material to create tiny batteries."

Comments

Unknown Error In The Submission

[the_mad_poster]

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

[bobhagopian]

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.

Re:Unknown Error In The Submission

[Waffle Iron]

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

[AKAImBatman]

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

[DoubleD]

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

[DNS-and-BIND]

And you're a fundamentalist environmentalist with a superiority complex.

Relatively *benign* mercury? Hg, the toxic liquid metal?

Re:Unknown Error In The Submission

[Anonymous Coward]

If some bozo burns the battery in a fire, it is very possible that radioactive soot particles will get inhaled.

The stupid scenario is assuming that the battery is always going to be handled properly.

Re:Unknown Error In The Submission

[Christopher Thomas]

Whereas, my opionion (and I believe CT's) is that since this is no better or worse than the current situation (and we believe it might be slightly better due to greater awareness & Federal regulations during manufacture), that we should go for it in order to gain the technological advantages of the new batteries.

I actually think that putting radioisotope-based power sources in the hands of consumers is not a good idea, because of the disposal problem. The existing controls on radioactive waste will, fortunately, ensure that this won't be done. What I expect to happen instead is more or less what the original article proposes - use of radioisotope power sources in specialized applications (like automobile black boxes and long-term sensors) where you _can_ control the lifecycle. I don't think that we'll see many problems on the _manufacturing_ side of things, because of the controls (in North America especially, as having a radiological accident there is a financial and liability nightmare).

For consumers, fuel-cell based technologies should provide more than enough power to satisfy intermediate-term needs and emerging applications. They're a little fussier, but have far less stigma attached, and their disposal problems are no worse than those of batteries.

My objection to Doc Ruby's posts is that they're semi-coherent rants that are guilty of exactly the crime he accuses others of - endorsing an extremist position without being swayed my mere facts (in this case, the fact that radioisotope waste isn't any deadlier than chemical waste, in the scenarios being discussed).

It's hopeless

[Chrispy1000000 the 2]

You know how ever safe they make it, the enviro-freaks will think *radiation, oh no, it will kill us all*, until it is banned. And once it is banned, it will *never* be unbanned. It's terribly sad to see good sience go to waste.

Re:Radioactivity is our friend! ... apparently...

[phlegmofdiscontent]

Since when are cellphones radioactive?

Re:Well I'll be damned

[AKAImBatman]

Ummm... considering that their useful lifetime is about 5-10 years, I wouldn't worry about it.

Re:Well I'll be damned

[chris_mahan]

They don't need to be. If the battery is rated: "Power to 2160", how many times will you need to recharge it in your lifetime?

"My Child Swallowed WHAT?" (a rant 8-)

[IBitOBear]

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-)]

Re:"My Child Swallowed WHAT?" (a rant 8-)

[3waygeek]

Google for thermeonics. Two entires. No wonder there isn't any funding.

Perhaps if you spelled it correctly, you'd find more entries.

Re:New addition to the Patriot Act?

[irokitt]

Yeah, Americium Oxide. And lantern mantles contain Thorium. So It's possible to make dirty bombs anyway. I'd worry more about someone buying large quantities of fertilizer.

Maybe PATRIOT batteries?

[Tailhook]

Maybe PATRIOT batteries?

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

A Distinctly One-Sided Piece

[dgallina]

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?

[StateOfTheUnion]

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?

Re:Well I'll be damned

[AKAImBatman]

When your [dog|kid] eats a gram of plutonium, it is far more toxic than eating an equivalent gram of lead, cadmium, or other non-radioactive heavy metal.

Have you been listening to Nader again? You might want to read this.

Ingestion is rarely a problem with Plutonium. The vector of most concern is inhalation. Thankfully, this isn't much of a problem as it takes SEVERE force to powderize plutonium. Basically, someone would have to intend to powderize it. And if they did powderize it, they're most likely to kill themselves rather than anyone else. Once dispersed, there wouldn't be sufficient quantities in the air for someone to get cancer from.

Read the first link on dirty bombs in my original post for more info.

The biggest issues I see...

[Cprossu]

The issues I personally see are
1) manufacturing the battery-in order for there to be a small source of radioisotope in somthing there has to be a big source of it the manufacturer spilts up...
this means safety becomes a concern, especially for people who manufacture them - not to mention the low level waste that will be created from the machines directly involved with manufacturing(ei getting irradiated) Now a good counter to that may be that we've been doing that with smoke detectors for years without problem (Americium 241 for those who want to know) so why should we have a problem with batteries? (in which I would then say that Am241 is a alpha particle(a high speed helium atom) emmiter rather than a beta emitter(a high speed electron and a neutrino) like the tin proposed in the batteries may be different to work with manufacture-wise
also
2) the other thing is what if a large shipment of these batteries happens to be involved in a fire [for reality, lets say a wholesaler's truck is the one in question {ei costco, sam's club}, so the quantity of batteries is fairly large]---that means the F.D. is dealing with ultimatly a HAZMAT fire....While burning sulfuric acid is bad, i think that burning radioactive tin would still be worse healthwise....

also
they mention that this form of tin decays into beta particles, I just know if there was a weak space in the shielding of the batteries it wouldn't be me who would be at risk, but rather my cell phone or pda-ever see what even insignificant background radiation does to electronics? (hint it is the same way they are harnessing power from the beta particles-through silicon electron displacement)

so for now as far as regular battery life extenders go, ill stick with a solar pannel glued to my hat thank you.

for a humerous note to a fairly large post, also as i saw the phrase "nickel-plutonium" battery laid out-please humor us with what isotope you are gona use ;) (remember if you use Pu280 like in RTG's then you A) have to shield it....ALOT, B) somehow minitureize it, and C) have to take the form of energy(heat) and harness it to the most efficiency that you can(as the more energy you take away, the less the overall compound heat is-which you also have to deal with getting rid of [I wouldnt want to burn myself on my PDA now would I? =D ]

There is significant environmental impact to this

[xenophrak]

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 in the California desert.

Re:Not radioactively powered but a trickle charge

[Twinbee]

Sorry, but this one always irritates me.

Should be: "Could'NT care less". It's only 3 extra characters!

Read:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/care.html