Slashdot Mirror


'30 Year Laptop Battery' is Unscientific Myth

An anonymous reader wrote to mention the wonderful news: "A research group funded by U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory is developing a battery which can provide continuous power to your laptop for 30 years! Betavoltaic power cells are constructed from semiconductors and use radioisotopes as the energy source..." Except, not so much. ZDNet's Mixed Signals blog with Rupert Goodwins explains why (as always) if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is: "The sort of atomic structures that generate power when bombarded with high energy electrons are the sort that tend to fall apart when bombarded with high energy electrons. While solar cells have the same problem, it's to a much lesser extent. There's a lot of research into making materials that don't suffer so much, but it remains a serious issue ... while it's true that a tritium-powered battery will eventually turn into an inert, safe lump of nothing much, and while it's also true that a modest amount of shielding will keep the radioactivity within the the battery the while, there's the small problem that if you break the battery during its life the nasties come out."

8 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. not the only nuclear battery by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the article is correct that radiation destroys semiconductor efficiency although not all "nuclear battery" designs involve semiconductors. space probes sometimes use a chunk of radioactive material that has shielding around it while the energy released is in the form of heat. this heat [temperature gradient] is harnessed by a thermoelectric materal- basically it consists of several layers of different metals that produce a voltage potential in response to a temperature gradient. the advantage in this is that you can use metal as shielding and not relatively fragile semiconductor material. although you need a radioisotope that can generate enough heat from decay to be useful- tritium's half-life is about 12 years so it might qualify, although a better solution might be a solid unless they use T2O, ditritium monoxide, which is "superheavy water"

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  2. A couple things... by mlwmohawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When an old scientist says something is possible, he is probably right. When an old scientist says something is impossible he is probably wrong. (I'll let you ponder the seeming paradox, but you'd have to know some old scientists to really get it.)

    We already have "dirty" nuclear materials in the hands of consumers: some types of smoke detectors, lead paint detectors, x-ray machines, and some other things.

    If someone wanted to make a dirty bomb, a few thousand dollars worth of the right smoke detectors would do perfectly.

  3. Betavoltaics = pseudoscience by timholman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The betavoltaic battery is nothing more than pseudoscience. It's higher quality pseudoscience than junk such as zero-point free energy generators or gravity wheel generators, but it is pseudoscience nonetheless. Every few years you see these sorts of claims about betavoltaic devices pop up again, then fade away.

    Despite years of claims, no one has ever come close to demonstrating a device with the sort of power densities claimed in the article. Furthermore, the biggest proponent of betavoltaic technology is Ruggero Santilli, an infamous pseudoscientist with a litany of nutty claims and bizarre theories of physics.

    If you look at the web pages of the companies that are involved in betavoltaics (e.g. betavoltaic.com or nuclearsolutions.com), you'll find that they have no physical facilities outside of a rented post office box or the home of one of the principals. None of them have any product to sell or even demo. I don't expect that will ever change.

  4. OK, time to smack down some mythconceptions. by AWeishaupt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Bremsstrahlung x-ray radiation is a problem working around high-energy beta emitting radioisotopes, such as Phosphorus-32, but not Tritium, which is a very low energy beta emitter. Betavoltaics are real, workable technology; not science fiction or junk science. Cardiac pacemakers using Plutonium-238 Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators are also a proven, decades old technology, too, for example. Tritium is an extremely low energy beta emitter. Given this, and the very short biological half-life of water in the body, it is one of the least harmful radioisotopes around. It occurs to a very small degree in nature, and is already used in radioluminescent watches, exit signs, gunsights, keyrings, compasses and such forth. The beta emission from Tritium is so low in energy that most radiation detection instruments will not detect it - only mixing the radioactive material with the scintillation cocktail in a liquid scintillation counter is sensitive enough to detect it. A gamma spectrometer, scintillation counter, geiger counter, ion chamber counter or detector won't even notice it.

  5. Re:Laptop? by cduffy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, the mercury in CF bulbs is going to be a significant problem.
    Overblown. A CFL powered by a coal-burning power plant results in a significant net reduction in mercury put into the environment -- that from the bulb itself is far more than offset by the mercury not released by the plant.
  6. Let's go hog wild and do the math! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Beta emitter.... Hmmm, that's superbly amenable to mathematical analysis. You see each beta particle is an electron, and there's 6.2.. x 10^18 of them per second in an Ampere. So if you want a radioactive source that's putting out that many electrons per second, and one Curie, one gram of Radium, is 3.7 x 10^10 disintegrations per second. My advanced math, i.e. division, we need about 1.67 x 10^8 Curies of radioactivity. That's kinda a lot. There's only about HALF of that amount of radioactivity in all the nuclear waste tanks at Hanford.

    Kinda impractical to stuff your laptop with several million gallons of radioactive waste.

    1. Re:Let's go hog wild and do the math! by LemonYellow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure, if the beta particles were captured and used as the current output of the battery, your calculations would be reasonable. If the beta particle has plenty of energy though, wouldn't it be able to dislodge more than one electron in whatever medium captured it? What's the mean free path through silicon of a beta particle somewhere in the middle of the energy spectrum for Radium's emissions?

      It might only take one hundredth of Hanford's waste...

    2. Re:Let's go hog wild and do the math! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >wouldn't it be able to dislodge more than one electron in whatever medium captured it? Wow! Somebody that knows about secondary emission! That would be a great idea, trade off energy (voltage) for more electrons (current). Sorry to say though, IIRC the betas come off at about 300eV, so even if you put them through a 64x electron cascade, down to 5 volts, you'd still need 1/30th of Hanford to get an Amp.