Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Battery That Runs 10 Years
Jenny writes "A battery with a lifespan measured in decades is in development at the University of Rochester, as scientists demonstrate a new fabrication method that in its roughest form is already 10 times more efficient than current nuclear batteries -- and has the potential to be nearly 200 times more efficient. Similar to the way solar panels work by catching photons from the sun and turning them into current, the science of betavoltaics uses silicon to capture electrons emitted from a radioactive gas, such as tritium, to form a current. As the electrons strike a special pair of layers called a 'p-n junction,' a current results. I can imagine lots of applications for this new battery including my own laptop."
Have we learned nothing. Calling it a nuclear (or nucular) battery will only ensure it's complete and total failure.
This is a really exciting breakthrough, but the idea is far from new. The parallel-place electrometer was used in the early days to detect ionizing radiation by knocking off stored charge with the incoming flux of charged particles. This is in a way harnessing the current created by radioactive decay. Modern radiation dosimeters use a similar principle. It was always discussed that if you could simply harness the current of the emitted betas, you would have a useable battery. Until now this wasn't feasible due to the efficiency of capturing those betas and using them as a current source. I can't wait till this is made available to the public.
A) Have a freshly-maimed lap full of delicious, toxic, viscous, burning battery acid; or
B) Inhale the rough equivalent of breathing a couple months' worth of naturally-occuring tritium?
Take your time. This one's a toughie.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
There is no mention of the power delivered by the battery - only its lifetime. It doesn't take much to run a pacemaker, but a laptop might require a battery the size of a loaf of bread, for all we know. Also, while tritium isn't all that dangerous, it IS radioactive, and carries all of the regulatory baggage that goes with that designation, so great care would have to be taken to prevent leakage during its lifetime, which wouldn't be easy.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
Try bringing in your suitcase nuke now be-atch.
Not a problem. They're too busy strip-searching all the banana people to worry about little old Mohammad and his suitcase nuke.
I dunno--the promise of never having to plug your computer/cell phone in to anything may sway a significant portion of the population.
Seriously. 100% self-contained, self-sustaining portable systems. Elimination of the single most annoying part of modern gadgetry--the external power source.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
This is going to be an interesting thing to see develop over the next few decades. Nuclear power went from this supposed clean and perfect energy source to becoming the demon of nuclear war, chernobyl and three mile island. When you say nuclear power to people, they get images of three-eyed fish, cancer, etc.
Having said that, safe nuclear power, which is entirely feasible right now, is really our best option for dealing with energy shortages in the near future. The pebble bed nuclear reactor technology doesn't melt down, provides copious energy, and doesn't emit a gram of CO2. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the disposal of the pebbles is less troublesome than the leftovers from the more traditional reactors.
A nuclear battery that could last 10 years would be way better, not only for the users of the batteries, but also for the environment. Think about how much energy you have to use to charge a laptop. All of that energy is primarily coming from fossil fuels. Then when you are done with the battery, you throw it in a dump (at least most people do), and the heavy metals that go into most of those batteries leak into the environment.
Of course, in order for any of this progress to happen, you're going to have to get people comfy with having a radioactive source a few inches away from their crotch. It might have all the shielding in the world, but it's still going to make a lot of people nervous.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
anyone else like me fear having anything nuclear in my lap?
You know, I used to worry about it just a little. Thanks to all the propaganda, there was always that nagging concern "What if I get cancer?" But now I'd be perfectly comfortable standing next to a nuclear power plant.
Why, you ask? Because I learned a lot more about radiation and eventually learned that it's not as dangerous as it's made out to be. You see, your body is fending off radiation from everything from bananas, to radon gas that you inhale, to Uranium scattered throughout your back yard, to cosmic rays that come screaming in from space with far more energy than anything naturally occuring here on earth.
Basically, it's a normal risk of living and we deal with it every day. Our bodies are quite well adapted to radiation. (In some cases, people exposed to higher levels of background radiation seem to live *longer*!) Most of the "instant death" or "cancer within months" scenarios involve being swamped with unnaturally high levels of radioactivity. Particularly rays higher in penetration power such as Gamma and X-Rays.
Trust me, a battery that uses Alpha or Beta rays is really nothing to worry about. The radiation can't even penetrate your skin!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
First off, the "suitcase nuke" as its called is a fairly unrealistic senario. While the USSR is rumored to have developed some of these portable nuclear devices (Nixon even commented on one that was thought to be in the basement of the Soviet Embasy) they were never created in quantity.
Now nuclear landmines are another creature alltogether. Both the US and the USSR created substantial quantities of these little gems which, which technicaly man portable, aren't exactly the kind of thing you'd be able to stroll about New York with. (they weight a LOT).
Much as the Neo-Cons hate to hear it, the major nuclear risk to the United States the shipping system. We're not talking UPS or FedEx here, we're talking cargo containers. There's more than enough space in a cargo container to pack it full of automotive parts with a nuclear land mine in the middle. Liberaly apply some lead sheilding and you've got yourself a covert nuclear device.
Since a tiny precentage of cargo containers are inspected upon entry into the US, this is unlikely to be noticed by US authorities, who will be too busy stoping cancer patients and bananna enthusiasts.
Even more ironic is that the shipping system will allow your nuclear cargo container to be delivered to the city of your choosing in just a few days.
It's the perfect perloined letter. Mr Poe would be so proud.
The Bush administration is, as the texas expression goes, all hat and no cattle. They're beefing up security where it doesn't matter so that they can look like they're doing something. In the mean time, the real issues are going unaddressed because it's either "too expensive" or "too difficult" to do anything meaningfull.
I wonder how expensive and difficult a smoking crater in the middle of Chicago would be? Don't think it could happen? Every bomb dropped in Iraq and Afghanistan has left mothers, daughters, sons, fathers, brothers and sisters weaping for loved ones. Eventualy, one of these people we've pissed off is going to have the resources and know how to strike back.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Kindly point out where I say "tritium is perfectly OK." You'll find that I haven't. Kindly explain why you are putting words in my mouth, and further explain why you think I'd be so blindingly stupid as to suggest that any radioisotope is "perfectly OK".
What the heck happens to the crap when the "battery runs out"? What happens to the stupid "ever on night lights" when the light is low enough that you can't see it anymore? That's right, it end up being thrown out. Then it migrates and eventually will end up in oganic compounts (it IS hydrogen after all) and well, might end up killing hell of a lot of people.
Take your pick: a landfill full of mostly-decayed tritium batteries, or a landfill full of lithium-ion, nickel-hydride, nickel-cadmium, and alkaline batteries. Which is going to pose the greater environmental health hazard--the radioisotope with a half-life of 12 years, or the battery acids and durable heavy metals?
I'm not suggesting that we should all pony up to the bar for a round of trititinis. I am saying that tritium batteries, at least at first glance, would appear to be much less hazardous to our health and environment than the batteries we use today. A constructive argument in this situation would be to debunk the notion that tritium batteries are safer than the batteries we use today.
And please don't give me crap about how quickly tritiated water leaves your body (one lifetime in human body is about 14 days since you pee it out! - I say one lifetime, not bullshit like "it all leaves your body within a month").
Well shit, Sparky, you'd better get right on the horn and set the EPA straight. Those knuckle-draggers clearly don't have the first clue what this "tritium" stuff is. I eagerly await links to scientific abstracts that support this assertion of yours.
Current modding when it comes to Nuclear on shashdot seems "Nuclear good" without any context. It is like blind leading the blind.
Again, show me where I say "nuclear good". All I did was directly link to and quote from the EPA's information. I'm not so much of a dullard as to think that tritium is harmless. That said, I'm quite willing to entertain the notion that a tritium cell could be significantly safer than what we use today.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
You seem to be under the delusion that we needed to piss them off.
We did, but being alive is enough to piss them off. Bin Laden wanted to kill us (all of us) for walking on his turf.
In the U.S. we call that bigotry (because we're not muslim). Unless you're from some culture we don't understand that is.
Do you honestly think that half of these folks are after us because of our doings in Iraq? Come on. Iraq is high profile, but if you want to look at things that the government is doing wrong, there are much more ethically clear-cut things than this.
Look at what our "War on Drugs" has done in Columbia.
Come on. Iraq is high profile, but if you want to look at things that the government is doing wrong, there are much more ethically clear-cut things than this.
Right you are - like displacing millions of Palestinians to make way for Israel.
Worst.Mistake.Ever.
Thanks to the colonizing British and the foresight impaired judgement of Truman. Nothing like killing thousands and making millions homeless to piss a people off.
Yes, the holocaust was likely one of the most tragic events ever.
Yes, the displaced jews needed a place to go after WW11.
No, Zionism was/is never the answer and now we see the results. Why did Osama send his henchmen? In his own words, to gain attention to the death America and the west is responsible for in the middle east. I'm a proud American Veteran of the first Gulf War, and I by no means condone any slaughter, but I CAN understand the motivation. If only Bush understood that by killing more we are only fanning the flames.
If only Republicans could accept critism instead of the policy of: "Deny everything, accuse your accuser". Why wasn't the reaction to 911 "Why are these people so pissed?" instead of "Oh yeah? well we'll kill all ya'll - U.S.A U.S.A U.S.A U.S.A U.S.A!!
ymmv
If only Republicans could accept critism instead of the policy of: "Deny everything, accuse your accuser". Why wasn't the reaction to 911 "Why are these people so pissed?" instead of "Oh yeah? well we'll kill all ya'll - U.S.A U.S.A U.S.A U.S.A U.S.A!!
I'm a peaceful person overall. There have been a few times in my life when people have picked fights with me, and, for the most part, I have been able to talk down the matter.
That said, if someone pulled a gun on me, I would kill them. I wouldn't ask them to put the gun down. I wouldn't ask them why they drew it. I would make every attempt in my power to kill them.
Bin Laden does not deserve my sympathy, compassion, or understanding. Bin Laden wants to see me dead.
As for Palestinians, they are an entirely different matter than this. The Palestinians have their own leaders. They don't need Bin Laden starting wars for them.
All of that aside, do you really think that recent U.S. involvement has made matters worse for the Palestinians? Think about peace talks from the past 20 years. Think about the Israeli army, and what they could do if their intentions really were malevolent.