Scientists Turn Nuclear Waste Into Diamond Batteries (newatlas.com)

Scientists at the University of Bristol have found a way to convert thousands of tons of nuclear waste into man-made diamond batteries that can generate a small electric current for thousands of years. New Atlas reports: How to dispose of nuclear waste is one of the great technical challenges of the 21st century. The trouble is, it usually turns out not to be so much a question of disposal as long-term storage. Disposal, therefore is more often a matter of keeping waste safe, but being able to get at it later when needed. One unexpected example of this is the Bristol team's work on a major source of nuclear waste from Britain's aging Magnox reactors, which are now being decommissioned after over half a century of service. These first generation reactors used graphite blocks as moderators to slow down neutrons to keep the nuclear fission process running, but decades of exposure have left the UK with 104,720 tons of graphite blocks that are now classed as nuclear waste because the radiation in the reactors changes some of the inert carbon in the blocks into radioactive carbon-14. Carbon-14 is a low-yield beta particle emitter that can't penetrate even a few centimeters of air, but it's still too dangerous to allow into the environment. Instead of burying it, the Bristol team's solution is to remove most of the c-14 from the graphite blocks and turn it into electricity-generating diamonds. The nuclear diamond battery is based on the fact that when a man-made diamond is exposed to radiation, it produces a small electric current. According to the researchers, this makes it possible to build a battery that has no moving parts, gives off no emissions, and is maintenance-free. The Bristol researchers found that the carbon-14 wasn't uniformly distributed in the Magnox blocks, but is concentrated in the side closest to the uranium fuel rods. To produce the batteries, the blocks are heated to drive out the carbon-14 from the radioactive end, leaving the blocks much less radioactive than before. c-14 gas is then collected and using low pressures and high temperatures is turned into man-made diamonds. Once formed, the beta particles emitted by the c-14 interact with the diamond's crystal lattice, throwing off electrons and generating electricity. The diamonds themselves are radioactive, so they are given a second non-radioactive diamond coating to act as a radiation shield.

Comments

Long range space probes?

[Sasayaki]

Seems like this kind of technology would be very useful for long duration space probes.

Re:Long range space probes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how it's output/mass compares to that of a radioactive thermal generator.

Re:Long range space probes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how I feel about carrying around radioactive materials (eg a phone or watch) but this is certainly the right direction for car batteries. The batteries have to be in devices that have mandatory recycling. Putting something radioactive on the launch pad and having it detonate in the atmosphere would be terrible too (Which is why we don't send nuclear materials into the sun.)

That said, this is the perfect thing to use in spacecraft. It's not dilithium fuel, but it's something that can be used to power all life support systems without risking consuming all fuel in the process. It would allow the space craft crew to be saved.

Re:Long range space probes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like this kind of technology would be very useful for long duration space probes.

Also it is useful tech if you'd like to power a lightsaber.

Re:Long range space probes?

[nospam007]

"Seems like this kind of technology would be very useful for long duration space probes."

Or the 200 billion Fukushima disaster from the previous article.

Re: Long range space probes?

[joao.cordeiro]

Should be small has it does not use heat to produce electricity, it dos not need to radiate heat. Assuming you dont need to add any other atom to get it solid (like putoniun oxide) then it should be a good energy density. Also has a half-life above 5000 years. So it will last alot more then current RTGs.

Re: Long range space probes?

[joao.cordeiro]

Carbon 14 is rare and hard to extract. It, making diamonts out of it, make ot even more expencive. We simply any car using them will cust millions.

Re:Long range space probes?

[arglebargle_xiv]

It'll never happen, by some mysterious process de Beers will acquire a worldwide monopoly on the diamond batteries and only sell them to approved dealers in small quantities to keep prices high.

Re:Long range space probes?

[fisted]

Which is why we don't send nuclear materials into the sun.

That's an adorably naive thing to say. Are you picturing that once something is in orbit, you just let it fall towards the sun? Hint: if it's in earth orbit, it's already falling towards the Sun, and, for that matter, towards Earth as well. It just keeps missing because basic orbital physics.
If you want to actually make it imact the sun, then you're in for a hell of delta-v, and that is for huge masses.

Re:Long range space probes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd settle for a good old blaster at my side. Kids?

Re:Long range space probes?

[tburkhol]

I wonder how it's output/mass compares to that of a radioactive thermal generator.

TFA claims it can do 0.2 mW/g (vs 8 for alkaline battery). It looks like Pu-238 decay heat is around 540 mW/g, with half life of 90 years, but 90-95% of that will be lost in conversion to electricity, and it will require substantial mass for that conversion and shielding.

Re: Long range space probes?

[tburkhol]

C14 is rare and hard to extract in nature. On the other hand, if you bombard cheap C12 with neutrons for a few decades, you create a a block with a high concentration of (more) easily extracted C14. Much the same as it's easier to wash the gold contacts off an old DIMM than it is to extract gold from raw ore. The difference is that the commercial market for C14 is too small to consider recycling. C14-doped diamond as a power source has at least the potential to provide such a market. A pretty niche market, where you want a few thousand years of electricity (presumably to power electronics that will fail after a few decades), but it's a cool use of otherwise dangerous waste material.

Re:Long range space probes?

[AmiMoJo]

1g of carbon apparently produces 15 Joules per day, which if you work it out is only going to deliver tens of microamperes. Enough for timekeeping and maybe running a simple LCD, perhaps even the odd very short very low power very low range radio broadcast for a sensor.

I suppose if they includes a fairly large amount of the stuff it might generate enough energy to be useful in a space probe, but I don't think the power/weight ratio is there. You would want to use something a bit more potent if you were spending that much money, as they did with various nuclear powered probes.

Where it will shine is for sensors. There was a plan to install sensors on water pipes before they were buried using nuclear batteries, for example. Stress sensors in buildings and on bridges. All sorts of areas where replacing the sensor is difficult and expensive so you want decades of battery life and the basic sensor isn't going to change much in that time.

Re: Long range space probes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Diamonds are solid enough.

Re:Long range space probes?

[fuzzywig]

Firstly, the C14 is encased in diamond, so a rocket explosion isn't going to do much. Secondly, this is a technology that can provide a tiny amount of power, for a very long period of time, which is the opposite of what you want in a car battery (lots of power, and available quickly).

Re:Long range space probes?

[Gavagai80]

For an interstellar probe, where the journey could take thousands of years, this would be the only power source capable of maintaining any instruments throughout the whole flight. Of course upon reaching the destination it'd have to activate some different sort of non-degrading higher-power source to send a sufficiently-strong radio signal back to Earth.

Re:Long range space probes?

[shaitand]

Sure, on the other hand what is stopping us from making something similar using Pu-238? Man-made diamond and vapor deposition of the same didn't exist when RTGs were designed.

Re:Long range space probes?

[tentenone]

I think OP meant that, because of the risk of the payload failing/exploding on launch, we don't just shoot all our waste into space (ignoring aiming for the sun, just get it off the earth). Also, OP is still wrong, but for different reasons.

Re:Long range space probes?

[arth1]

Firstly, the C14 is encased in diamond, so a rocket explosion isn't going to do much.

Diamonds are very hard, but they are not tough like steel - they are pretty brittle along the crystal lattices. There's an entire industry around repairing chipped[*] and cracked diamonds. But hit it hard, and there's not much to salvage.

[*]: A fairly common way for real diamond rings to be damaged is by "proving" it's real by scratching glass. It does scratch glass, but pieces of diamond may also break off.

Re:Long range space probes?

[zifn4b]

Seems like this kind of technology would be very useful for long duration space probes.

Project Starshot perphaps? https://breakthroughinitiative...

Re:Long range space probes?

[Anonymous Coward]

"which is the opposite of what you want in a car battery"

To a certain degree to be sure, but depending on the Watt/weight ratio and the usage of the vehicle this kind of slow release energy source could have more significant applications than you might think (depending on its safety/economics). Imagine a vehicle with a completely electric drive-train but with only enough battery power for a trip of say 20 miles, That is enough power to get your average person to work but not enough to get them back home. Enter a low wattage constant energy source, say 0.5 kwh per hour, in the 8 hours you are at work it should generate 4 kwh, in a full day it would generate 12 kwh. At the rate of some EVs (34 kwh per 100 miles or 0.34 kwh per mile) that is enough to handle the average commute without ever having to plug the vehicle in/fuel it. Of course this scenario cuts the margins pretty close, hopefully you would have a slightly more energetic power source (say 1kwh per hour for a total of 70 miles of range per day) and a little more on-board battery storage. I doubt this diamond battery could do that safely/economically but other fuel based sources probably can. With they electric drive-train being put in some hybrid vehicles today you can think less about how much power an energy source puts out and focus more on its efficiency.

Re:Long range space probes?

[wvmarle]

I was personally more thinking about my mobile phone. Not having to charge it every single day, and/or carrying bulky and heavy external batteries would be awesome.

Re:Long range space probes?

[DanielRavenNest]

> Putting something radioactive on the launch pad and having it detonate in the atmosphere would be terrible too (Which is why we don't send nuclear materials into the sun.)

That's not why we don't do it. I worked on a "Space Disposal of Nuclear Waste" study at Boeing, under contract to the DOE. The risk reduction (about two cancer deaths a year on a statistical basis) was simply not worth the extra cost (about double that of burying it underground). Also, the Sun is not the safest place to dispose of it. If your rocket fails and leaves it crossing the orbit of Venus or Mercury, they could send it back to Earth by accident. The lowest risk is to place it in an orbit halfway between Venus and Earth (0.85 AU), and that also takes much less delta-V than hitting the Sun.

The nuclear waste was assumed to be glassified into coke-can sized segments, then formed into 2-meter "waste balls" surrounded by 20 cm thick steel alloy, which in turn was surrounded by heat shield tiles. The worst case accident is no on the launch pad, which is merely a lot of fire. The worst case is the rocket failing just before reaching orbit, where the payload kinetic energy is twice that of the best rocket fuel. So the heat shield enabled surviving re-entry, and the thick steel shell enabled surviving a terminal-velocity ground impact. It was also a corrosion-resistant alloy, because most launch failures end up dropping the payload in the ocean. We assumed a 2% launch failure rate.

The waste balls were so damage-resistant, that the study manager would have been happy to take one home and put it in the basement to keep the house warm in the winter (they generate 2 kW from radioactive decay heat). House fires, natural gas explosions, earthquakes, none of those would do any damage to it.

Re: Long range space probes?

[Anonymous Coward]

A little thing called super criticality might be a problem when you try and compress pu 328 into a diamond, why don't you give it a try, I'll look for the big bright bang.

Re: Long range space probes?

[shaitand]

"The nuclear diamond battery is based on the fact that when a man-made diamond is exposed to radiation, it produces a small electric current."

A diamond is needed to convert the radiation into current, there is no clear indication the radiation source itself needs to be a diamond vs lining a shielded rtg with vapor deposited diamond.

Re: Long range space probes?

[Anonymous Coward]

A generator already exists: google. Radioisotopic thermoelectric generator. NASA uses these.

Re: Long range space probes?

[joao.cordeiro]

Sure but then you need to burn nuclear fuel just to bombard carbon to make it C14. That has to happen in a billion dolar reactor. Thats has one of the most expensive things i can think about.

Re: Long range space probes?

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of a story in Cuba. Imagine the typical tourist who goes to Havana. Eager to flash his cash in a country where people have very little. He was showing off his new super expensive watch. He explained how it was worth the equivalent of many years of their paltry average salary. To show the quality of tge watch, he wanted to demonstrate how the glass (saphyre? Not sure) was unscratchable. He did that by rubbing the watch against the stone floor. On his second demonstration he pressed too hard. The glass did not scratch, but it broke. Hilarity ensued.

Re:Long range space probes?

[RespekMyAthorati]

Radiation is forever.

Re: Long range space probes?

[Coren22]

So, if they can find a use for what would otherwise be waste products (that need to be treated like radioactive waste), it will reduce the costs of an operation that is happening anyways.

Not sure how that makes the material somehow extremely rare or expensive though. I am sure the reactor management companies are very happy to be able to get rid of the waste.

Re:Long range space probes?

[Anonymous Coward]

For space probes the power/weight ratio might be a problem. Or not given the benefits of basically lasting forever (longer than the rest of the probe).

But what about jewelry? Specifically glow in the dark jewelry. Put a small LED into the diamond and it will sparkle even in the dark.

Or night lights for kids? Emergency light strips showing the way to exits in planes? Signs for emergency exits?

De Beers Marketing

[0100010001010011]

Don't get a radioactive man made diamond. Buy one of our questionably sourced ones.

We'll even train you how to spot the difference.

[My Mohs scale doesn't care. Minecraft has made me want a diamond everything hand tool.]

Re:De Beers Marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

But the radioactive one comes with a remote so that I can shock her, like a dog collar, when she refuses to make me a sammich.

Re:De Beers Marketing

[0100010001010011]

Have you tried sudo?

Re: De Beers Marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

One mutant's trash is another mutant's treasure!

Sounds great

[bjamesv]

as long as you don't shatter the diamond!

Energy input.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the energy input required to create this vs the energy it will output?

Re:Energy input.

[wierd_w]

CVD is a low pressure ionized gas crystallization process. It produces gemstone class diamonds.

The researchers would likely benefit more from using the Russian hydraulic form compression method of producing said diamonds, because it is much cheaper. It does not produce single, large crystal diamonds without defects the way CVD does, but we aren't trying to make jewelry here. We are interested in trapping the emitted beta particles (high energy electrons emitted from the nucleus) in the lattice and using the high bandgap semi conductive properties of the diamond to transport those electrons as a reliable source of current.

Without exact figures for how many tons of irradiated graphite there is, how energy intense CVD us compared to compressive forming, and how efficient the two end products are, I cannot even begin to answer your question though.

Even if there is a big deficit, it might still be worthwhile, due to the immense savings on sequestration costs, and maintenance costs of these batteries.

Re:Energy input.

[Anonymous Coward]

The half life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years; a battery fabricated from it will produce a small current for thousands of years. Surely that has value beyond the energy input?

Re:Energy input.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amortize that energy input over the half-life of carbon 14 and I suspect the figures would look rather attractive (remember you're making a battery that will work for a few 1000 years without charging).

You might also want to compare the energy required to do this to the energy required to encase it in concrete (include the energy cost of the concrete) and bury it in landfill.

Re:Energy input.

[caseih]

Simply put it does not matter if it can produce it's intended amount of current for longer than any other battery technology. Likely, though, eventually it could more energy than was spent on making the diamond battery.

Re:Energy input.

[slashrio]

I doubt the materials of the whole device equipped with the battery would last that long.

Re:Energy input.

[quanminoan]

The first hydraulic presses (tetrahedral presses) were made by an american engineer Tracy Hall. The "diamond makers" is a great book that discusses these early efforts and the long history of trying to create artificial diamond. Also not sure about efficiency, but high pressure formed artificial diamonds tend to be way more defective - a problem if you're trying to create semiconductor properties of a beta voltaic. CVD actually produces diamonds with less flaws than nature.

Re:Energy input.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter that much?
If you have to put in twice the amount of energy you get out of it, would that make it useless?
A battery that won't run out in the foreseeable time sound very useful for RTC batteries.
If they don't fail and start to leak and destroy the PCB after 20 years then they would be a big step up from current technology.
Then it doesn't really matter if you have to put in ten times the energy and pay a 100 times more for it, there are still many applications where it would be usable just to get away from the issues with current battery technology.

Re:Energy input.

[drinkypoo]

The first hydraulic presses (tetrahedral presses) were made by an american engineer Tracy Hall. The "diamond makers" is a great book that discusses these early efforts and the long history of trying to create artificial diamond.

There's also some discussion about it in The Rise and Fall of Diamonds, a book which chronicles the history of the diamond industry and the many evils of DeBeers — not that this even a focus, it's simply the history of the diamond industry and you can't be complete without talking about that. And... don't they own that process now?

Re:Energy input.

[quanminoan]

I'll have to pick up a copy of that book, thanks. I don't think DeBeers has much control over patents, but purchases companies that start using the technology. For example e6.com was purchased by DeBeers, I presume to control their tech. The old press technology is still in use by several companies mostly to produce diamonds for drills, like Novatek (started by Hall but still in business). Many use CVD tech though, but sell under the radar to avoid DeBeers.

Re:Energy input.

[networkBoy]

Wait so we just filled in #2?

1) Start making diamonds using CVD and marketing them as gems
2) Sell out to DeBeers at a steep markup
3) Profit!

*mind blown*

Re:Energy input.

[Shikaku]

I kinda want to know the total lifetime power output. This was not my field of study however so I must ask for someone who has this knowledge for the number crunching.

Re:Energy input.

[Anonymous Coward]

So? Make the diamonds to uniform dimensions (think AA/C/D/etc batteries), when your hardware craps out or becomes obsolete remove the diamond batteries and pop it into a new generation of equipment.

Re:Energy input.

[slashrio]

That would defeat the stated advantage that the battery will deliver power for over 5000 years without the need of replacement.
What's the difference in that respect between replacing the battery itself or the whole device built around the battery?

Re:Energy input.

[Bandraginus]

Maybe the Long Now foundation could make use of it as a power source for their 10,000 year clock?

Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[qi_xi]

Carrying around a tiny radioactive battery in every phone, watch, pacemaker, and remote control seems like a great idea,

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[jeffb (2.718)]

You don't eat bananas, either, do you? Because those monstrosities not only turn out beta radiation, they produce nearly-impossible-to-shield gamma radiation, and they occasionally even spit particles of pure antimatter. Boo!

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Simpsons it first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacel

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not see the difference from carrying around a watch that is illuminated by tritium illumination, which is not uncommon (I have had a Tracer H3 watch with tritium illumination which has been working flawlessly for ~10 years now).
Also, you are aware that all organic material (including you) is slightly radioactive and yet very few seem to care about eating eating bananas or sleeping next to another person?

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever had a glow-in-the-dark watch dial? OOPS Radium! NO SHIELDING EITHER! OMGWTFBBQ!!!

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[djinn6]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but I think it's actually a great idea. I can stop worrying about my electronics running out of charge just when I need them the most.

My only concern is disposal, since some people will throw them in the trash bin and they'll end up in a landfill somewhere.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

We did go through a period of nuclear powered pacemakers. Plutonium 238 radiothermal was apparently the most popular.

It's considered good practice to remove them before cremation; but there are surprisingly few unpleasant stories.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[Michael Woodhams]

Almost certainly not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Glow-in-the-dark watch dials are almost always phosphorescent paint, not radioluminescent paint. If after a long time in darkness your watch dial no longer glows, but it glows brightly after exposure to light, it is phosphorescent. If it glows with the same brightness regardless of light exposure history, it is radioluminescent. Personally I have never to my knowledge been in the presence of a radioluminescent anything.

Even if it is radioluminescent, if made in the last 50 years it probably isn't radium, but rather promethium-147 or tritium.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[sjames]

There are still a few plutonium powered pacemakers out there. No disasters happened and they don't even have their batteries encased in diamond.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[Dutch Gun]

Hulk love bananas!

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[Idou]

2010 called and it wanted to let you know that Bananas are radioactive—But they aren't a good way to explain radiation exposure.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[Loki_1929]

Not really that surprising: the physics is relatively simple and well-understood. As such, all we're really talking about is choosing to avoid negligently flawed design decisions. The overwhelming fear of huge medical lawsuits is enough to at least do that much (though unfortunately often not much more, particularly on the security front).

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is to minimize your exposure to ionizing radiation as much as possible, not add more sources. Eat bananas - it's less than the background radiation, wear this watch - it's less than the background radiation, let's go and live next to a nuclear power station, - it's less than the background radiation.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[Anonymous Coward]

The most widespread misconception about radiation is the ZOMG DEADLY FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS misconception.
Something that emits much radiation can't have a long duration. Something that stays around for long can't emit much radiation.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[Jon Peterson]

I have a watch from the 1940s that's still giving out plenty of radiation. Sadly, the phosphor is all used up so it doesn't glow at all.

Early glow in the dark paints used a mixture of radium and phosphor. The decay from the radium would excite the phosphor and make it glow. Unfortunately it also broke down the phosphor, so while radium lasts for centuries, the paint doesn't.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[sjames]

Actually, in a study of nuclear medicine technicians, it was fould that their mortality rate was slightly lower than others in healthcare who didn't get the exposure. It seems there's a sweet spot for radiation exposure and background radiation in many places is just a bit below it.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[drinkypoo]

Personally I have never to my knowledge been in the presence of a radioluminescent anything.

They're not actually that hard to come by, you can buy radioluminescent keychains and you've probably stood next to someone with one in their pocket more than once without knowing it. You used to be able to buy tritium vial lights readily in the USA and you can still get them easily in the UK and other places.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[GNious]

Get an old glow-in-the-dark watch instead - the Radium on the dial is a nice alpha-emitter, for about 1600 years

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[GNious]

My 7th-9th grade physics teacher had a radium-based glow-in-the-dark watch, and would tell a story about how HIS physics teacher at uni would steer clear of him.
He had taken to store the watch in a metal box at the school, and used it for demonstrations of Geiger-counters :)

From a bit of googling, they'd use Radium-226, which is an alpha-emitter. Thinking a bit of crystal covering the dial, and a metal frame, and you're sorta safe, no?

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[zwarte piet]

That, also low level radiation isn't as damaging as often portrayed. Much like you don't get sunburn after a year by walking in the sunshine every day for 1 minute. (But you might if you do it for 6 hours on one day)

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[quanminoan]

Many exit signs and gun sights use radioluminescent paint (with tritium if I remember correctly).

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[jeffb (2.718)]

2010 called and...

...I certainly hope you warned them about the election.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[jeffb (2.718)]

From a bit of googling, they'd use Radium-226, which is an alpha-emitter. Thinking a bit of crystal covering the dial, and a metal frame, and you're sorta safe, no?

Yes, you, the wearer of the intact watch, were completely safe; its housing would stop alpha radiation at effectively 100%.

The people who drew up the radioactive paint using mouth-operated pipettes, and the people who scavenged through the trash containing the smashed watch bits, not so much.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullcrap. Post a reference.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[Mike Van Pelt]

Cue the Leslie Fish song "Grandma Went Out With a Bang". (Annoying for the assumption that Grandma's plutonium pacemaker would explode at cremation, but a funny song, still.)

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Yeah, I was thinking more in terms of 'end user does something stupid, now somebody gets to collect the plutonium dust' type problems. I suppose that the major advantage is that people are somewhat less likely to do dumb things to electronics that they'd need to cut open their abdomens to get at.

It's really the end-user/disposal problem that makes me nervous about nuclear batteries, not the 'will the engineers screw it up?' aspect. 'Sealed sources', containing various isotopes neatly packaged as radiation sources, are even simpler to implement than nuclear batteries; and generally aren't an engineering problem; but the DoE has gone to a lot of trouble hunting down 'orphan sources' that have left responsible supervision for one reason or another; and it's hardly unheard of for those to end up in some 3rd world junkyard being crowbared open by people who have no idea what a mistake they are making.

Pacemakers have the advantage of a more or less automatic paper trail(since the diagnosis of cardiac abnormality and implantation surgery tend not to be handled in cash and off the books) and people don't tend to cut through their own bodies in order to do stupid things to their gadgets; but I'd be rather pessimistic about the possibility of sound lifecycle management for nuclear batteries in broader application.

It's too bad; because they'd be extremely useful for a variety of low power off-grid stuff; but when people can't even be bothered to separate their trash from their recyclables; it's hard to be optimistic about their safe disposal of nuclear batteries.

Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch.

[sjames]

overview. Also here and here.

Finally, here.

Please be a bit more careful where you throw that bullcrap. And WASH YOUR HANDS!

Question for De Beers:

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the half-life of forever?

Re:Question for De Beers:

[Anonymous Coward]

the half-life of forever is forever.

Re:Question for De Beers:

[WDubois]

Um, no. The half-life of forever would be forever / 2.

Re:Question for De Beers:

[RespekMyAthorati]

Twoever?

Samsung s8 nuclear edition

[Anonymous Coward]

The phone to hot to keep in stores

Energy Crystals

[Anonymous Coward]

So we have now created energy crystals that give off power for thousands of years.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Re:Energy Crystals

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want four adventurers going around sealing the evil back into these? Because that's how you get four adventurers going around sealing the evil back into these.

Re: Energy Crystals

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment reminds me of Asimov's Foundation.

Re:Energy Crystals

[TheDarkMaster]

Interesting thinking.

Re:Energy Crystals

[wonkey_monkey]

To the Stargate!

Not that simple ...

[perpenso]

What is the energy input required to create this vs the energy it will output?

Its not that simple. Basically the true comparisons are the alternative nuclear waste storage and energy storage (battery) options?

Re:Not that simple ...

[AmiMoJo]

Indeed, a battery that will last 20+ years is extremely valuable if the only way to replace said battery is to dig up a stretch of road or rip into the foundations of a building.

Brilliant research

[quax]

This could be a real game changer if it manages to change some minds. We need nuclear tech to cope with the nuclear waste, and this can be done in an inherently safe and responsible way that turns the waste into energy.

I very much hope this example in doing this on the small scale, as with these diamond batteries, will translate into support for bigger inherently safe designs that allow to transmute nuclear waste into lesser problems.

Re:Brilliant research

[Applehu Akbar]

"This could be a real game changer if it manages to change some minds. We need nuclear tech to cope with the nuclear waste, and this can be done in an inherently safe and responsible way that turns the waste into energy."

But take a closer look at the article. This iech only applies to reactors using graphite blocks as a moderator, a type not used in the US or Asia. The 14C is separated out from the stable 12C and formed into the energy-producing diamonds.

Our own spent fuel, because it still contains 95% of the original energy potential, is better off being fed to a new generation of full-burnup reactors that will extract all the energy and leave behind only short-lived waste.

Re:Brilliant research

[AHuxley]

The UK had very different needs that just power from its reactors.
After the US stopped sharing nuclear projects with the UK, the need for mil and public nuclear research was fully funded.
"Information sharing ceases" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"End of American cooperation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That has led the UK with some very different and unique production lines e.g. Sellafield/Windscale/Calder Hall, later Magnox reactors, the need for tritium production. A nice big military plutonium stockpile was created.
Most of the UK nuclear work is now to look after old sites, keep the staff ready to build new nuclear submarine servicing in England if the other UK sites won't stay open.

Re:Brilliant research

[quax]

Agreed. Hence my emphasis on changing minds. To me this technology is not so much a large scale practical solution, but something that will hopefully teach a new generation that nuclear energy can be handled responsibly. (And to me that means inherently sub-critical).

Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[perpenso]

Carrying around a tiny radioactive battery in every phone, watch, pacemaker, and remote control seems like a great idea,

Fine, power your bitcoin asic in the closet.

Or move the remote control a few centimeters away from you when not actively clicking.

From the summary: "Carbon-14 is a low-yield beta particle emitter that can't penetrate even a few centimeters of air"

Re: Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is when particle emitting beta rad enter the food chain and are ingested. Yes, they are stopped after a few cm of air. But when they are inside your colon? Problems.

Re:Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[jcochran]

You gotta remember that you're dealing with idiots who tremble at even a hint of an idea that radiation is near them. In fact, there's a little device in your car (assuming it's powered by gasoline) where it's name was determined due to the fear of radiation. The "catalytic converter" has that name because of idiots who fear the concept of radiation. The correct proper name for that device is "catalytic reactor". But the word reactor is used in nuclear reactors so "obviously" a "catalytic reactor" is dangerously radioactive and should never ever be placed in a car because it might spread radiation all over the place and don't even think about what would happen in an accident. Because of that fear, engineers call that little device a "catalytic converter" because that doesn't have the dangerous radiation inducing effects that the word "reactor" has.

Remember your audience and compensate for their ignorance and/or stupidity.

Re:Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[drinkypoo]

The correct proper name for that device is "catalytic reactor".

What? According to who?

Because of that fear, engineers call that little device a "catalytic converter"

No, not in the technical literature they don't. They call it an exhaust gas catalyst.

Re: Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Ford Nucleon concept car was for a different age.

Re:Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[Anonymous Coward]

MRI used to be NMR: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, was renamed for the same reason.

Re:Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[zwarte piet]

My diesel car also has a catalic converter.

Re:Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[jbmartin6]

I believe smoke detectors have a very small amount of some radioactive isotope in them too.

Re:Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[wyHunter]

Ionizing smoke detectors have americium in them, but the optical ones don't.

Re:Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[andy16666]

You gotta remember that you're dealing with idiots who tremble at even a hint of an idea that radiation is near them. In fact, there's a little device in your car (assuming it's powered by gasoline) where it's name was determined due to the fear of radiation. The "catalytic converter" has that name because of idiots who fear the concept of radiation. The correct proper name for that device is "catalytic reactor". But the word reactor is used in nuclear reactors so "obviously" a "catalytic reactor" is dangerously radioactive and should never ever be placed in a car because it might spread radiation all over the place and don't even think about what would happen in an accident. Because of that fear, engineers call that little device a "catalytic converter" because that doesn't have the dangerous radiation inducing effects that the word "reactor" has.

Remember your audience and compensate for their ignorance and/or stupidity.

It's a chemical reactor, not a nuclear one. Catalytic activity is a chemical phenomenon, not nuclear.

Re:Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that is the point he's making.

Re:Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a chemical reactor, not a nuclear one. Catalytic activity is a chemical phenomenon, not nuclear.

He knows that. He's referring to the ignorant public's perception of the word 'reactor' .

Re:Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[david_thornley]

Yup. I've got a small amount of a transuranic element in my house. I consider that really cool.

Re:Fine, power your bitcoin asic ...

[Anonymous Coward]

My inquisitor has a Catholic converter.

Carbon-14

[jbmartin6]

This waste is really going to screw with any future archaeologists, let's put some of it in all our grade school time capsules.

Re:Carbon-14

[srmalloy]

Not really, because the carbon-14 dating relies on there being an approximately stable level of that isotope in the environment to be taken up by biologic processes, and this production of nuclear batteries isolates the carbon-14 from the environment.

Re:Carbon-14

[ghoul]

Now we know the world was made 5000 years ago. All our dating is off because Adam and Eve were playing with Nuclear batteries.

Re:Carbon-14

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that atmospheric C-14 levels have been all out of whack since Atmospheric H-bomb testing in the 1960's-1970's, so we are off the existing sequence already anyway.

Re:Carbon-14

[jbmartin6]

You're right, something would have to eat it first.

Most expensive electricity ever

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't expect them to hit the shelves anytime soon. Supplies are limited.

Hmmmmmm

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Sounds too good to be true....but let's see what comes of it.

Re:Hmmmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. What comes of it? Alpha, beta or gamma radiation? I can't wait!

Re:Hmmmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to wait. You can read TFA.

Rad-shield plus power source

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes me wonder if a mixture of diamond layers and high-molar boric acid might make a thin and effective radiation shield/low voltage power source for probes, satellites and interplanetary craft...

Real electricity from diamonds!

[Billy the Mountain]

Yes it is electricity BUT it's measured in picoamps.

Crush the diamond and the SNORT it

[raymorris]

As the summary mentioned, the radiation from most waste can't penetrate even air, or tissue paper. So to have a problem you'll need to crush it, then snort it up your nose like cocaine.

Re:Crush the diamond and the SNORT it

[Anonymous Coward]

what if you burn the diamond?

Re:Crush the diamond and the SNORT it

[Oswald McWeany]

First Crystal Meth, now Diamond Cocaine.

Re:Crush the diamond and the SNORT it

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know what is necessary to burn diamond? It takes the temperatures of a arc welder and concentrated oxygen.

As long as the case is a molecule thick

[raymorris]

Technically, the battery wouldn't be radioactive, because it would have some sort of case. Even wrapping it in tissue paper (or as the summary says, air) will stop the radiation in common nuclear waste, known as beta radiation.

To hurt yourself with these batteries (or most nuclear waste), you'll need to crush them into a fine powder and snort them up your nose like cocaine.

The scarier radiation is gamma - air doesn't stop gamma. Gamma radiation comes from living things.

Energy density

[lorinc]

What's the recoverable energy density of this? I mean, how many watts of electricity can I get out of on of these, for how long, per cm^3?

Re:Energy density

[ezdiy]

You don't want to care about energy density (aka capacity), as that number is insane for anything nuclear. You do want to know the internal resistance, rate of "discharge", basically watts it can produce for given weight. You can burn uranium or gasoline in an instant, but decay mode sources (RTG and this) are limited to rate of decay.

Back of envelope: (all exponents are to power of 10, not 2).

One C-14 atom decays in 5730 years, shoots off 156476 electron volt we ideally capture, and one anti-neutrino we shield off
One electron volt is 1.6e-19 J, ie that beta decay is roughly 2.5e-14 J.

You need 10^14 atoms of c-14 to get 2.5 joule every 5730 years.

Now for watts (aka joule per second): 5730 * 360 * 86400 * 10^14 to get 2.5 watts output
5730 * 360 * 86400 * 10^14 / 2.5 =

7.1e24 C-14 atoms per watt.

Now C-12 atom supposedly weights 2e-23 grams and C-14 should be in same ballpark, meaning

35 grams of this stuff, in ideal case gives off 1watt,

Which is pretty impressive, for a battery which lasts basically forever.

Re:Energy density

[ezdiy]

Err, make that 70grams. This is because probability of atom decaying in half-life is, well, half, 50%. Also that ballpark can be way off by magnitude or three, either due to my error or inefficiences in the electron capture. Even if its 4 magnitudes off, it's still very competive with contemporary RTGs which are limited in efficiency by costly radiators.

Re:Energy density

[lorinc]

Thanks for the ballpark estimate. This is indeed pretty impressive. Even at 10% efficiency, you get 300mW for 100g, forever. Talk about lifetime powered gadgets...

Promising but will they generate enough power?

[LemonFire]

These diamond batteries sounds very promising, but will they generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity I need?

-- This sig is newsworthy, more at 11

Re:Promising but will they generate enough power?

[zwarte piet]

With a suitably sized super capacitor attached they will. Charging might take a while.

Re:Promising but will they generate enough power?

[LemonFire]

With a suitably sized super capacitor attached they will. Charging might take a while.

That's why we'd use the flux capacitor!

Unlike my high maintenence mechanical batteries...

[91degrees]

this makes it possible to build a battery that has no moving parts, gives off no emissions, and is maintenance-free

Okay, I'm not criticising the basic idea here, but this list of benefits applies to all batteries.

Not technical.

[quenda]

The technical challenges were mostly solved decades ago. Since then it has just been political.

Re:Unlike my high maintenence mechanical batteries

[drinkypoo]

this makes it possible to build a battery that has no moving parts, gives off no emissions, and is maintenance-free

Okay, I'm not criticising the basic idea here, but this list of benefits applies to all batteries.

False. Moving parts, OK. But emissions? Google up on car battery explosions. And maintenance free? Google up some more on car batteries. In fact, if you don't maintain them when they have emissions, it makes them more likely to explode.

There are numerous batteries which are not just lumps which spit out power.

Re:Unlike my high maintenence mechanical batteries

[91degrees]

Okay. Point taken. Although I'd really consider explosions to be a separate issue from emissions. And not exploding sounds like one of the legitimate advantages of these; the other key one being longevity.

Do people actually know rough performance?

[91degrees]

It sounds like we're looking at expensive components, and other posts suggests picoamps. But what sized battery would we need to get that to something usable?

Do these have a potential use in satellites or are they too heavy? How about pacemakers? Or is the radiation shielding inadequate?

Re:Do people actually know rough performance?

[91degrees]

Answering my own question - digitaltrends gives us some information.

A diamond beta-battery containing 1g of C14 will deliver 15J per day, and will continue to produce this level of output for 5,730 years

So that's 170 microWatts per gram or 6 grams per milliwatt. That's actually a usable level of power even when talking such small power cells. Still not sure what a good application might be for this technology.

Re:Do people actually know rough performance?

[Baron_Yam]

So... about 400,000 lbs of these batteries to power the average Western home?

You're going to need a dedicated outbuilding for that!

Re:Do people actually know rough performance?

[91degrees]

Yeah... Don't think that's really the target application. If nothing else because that will probably cost hundred of millions of dollars (assuming the cost is comparable to industrial diamond).

Re:Do people actually know rough performance?

[syntotic]

We have batteries marked in Mah or mAh everywhere, but whenever we want the calculus done in Slashdot, we end up in Joules and useless Watts. And we still do not know the cm^3 value, only the value in grams. This situation IS an infantilization AND a character defect, even a phobic mania if persisted. Doesnt this website pay editors and experts to settle this kind of matters and questions? I have had in my mind the phrase: battery, diamonds, since I am a child and only now find it mentioned together.

Re:Do people actually know rough performance?

[91degrees]

Amp hours is established to be suitably huge, but it depends on voltage.

Let's assume our 6g battery (which will be about 2 cm^3) produces 1 Volt. That means it produces 170 microAmps, and since it lasts for thousands of years, gives about 16,000 Amp hours.

But we already know these batteries last a long time. The question is whether they're light enough to do something with. Suppose I want to run a processor in a satellite. Do the number of amp hours matter?

Nice...let's see it power something useful

[Danathar]

A youtube demo is nice.. But what would REALLY be useful is to demo something that is used every day powered by diamond batteries. In that way it becomes something actually real to the average person. People have become SO jaded by researchers releasing papers and youtube videos only to find out it was a submarine attempt at getting more funding.

Samsung may be interested

[Photonmaker]

After all, burning batteries are so early 2016, potential for fission in a battery is the future.

Re:Unlike my high maintenence mechanical batteries

[drinkypoo]

Although I'd really consider explosions to be a separate issue from emissions.

They're really not separate when the emission is a flammable gas. I've blown the top off of a car battery during charging and desulfation before. I wasn't nearby when it happened, luckily. Presumably it had a low/empty cell, but it was a PITA to open so I didn't. Oh well! It was a failed battery anyway and blowing the top off doesn't affect the core/scrap value.

nuclear diamond battery

[Larry_Dillon]

A good idea until they put them in phones and they explode in your back pocket.

Re:Unlike my high maintenence mechanical batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

Even moving parts doesn't apply (in either case). It's just a matter of scale. In the case of regular batteries, ions are moving back and forth in solution to transfer elections back and forth. In the diamond battery there are beta particles being emitted.

No mention of Voltage or Current - HEY SLASHDOT

[Khyber]

Until you can tell us what these cells can provide via voltage and amperage so we know the total energy density/capacity, fuck off with this bullshit hype story. Sure it's neat, but unless it gives us the geeky details, keep that shit set aside for the plebs.

Low power indeed

[andy16666]

15 Joules a day is about 175 microwatts continuously, enough to power very simple integrated circuits, perhaps a simple LCD watch. Not enough to produce light or sound or to power much of a processor. It would be a challenge to find an application that wouldn't require a large number of them.

Ironically, not carbon-neutral in the least

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me like it takes dozens (if not hundreds) orders of magnitude more energy to create these 'diamond batteries' than you'd ever get out of them.

Re:Unlike my high maintenence mechanical batteries

[Cinnamon Beige]

With batteries, emissions would also include leaks, and disposal concerns which are...significant. Basically the main reason they stopped insisting batteries went into hazardous waste instead of regular trash is because people were tossing them into the regular trash anyway.

I'd actually expect these to be safer on the disposal side, especially since once no longer producing power...well, they are diamonds.

Pylon Crystals!

[KlomDark]

Land of the Lost - Sleestak Pylon Control Panels here we come!

Dilithium Crystals

[Bratch]

So this is the first step towards eventually having dilithium crystals.

The FREE MARKET of Ideas Strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay Bristol teamðY! This is genuine thinking outside the box kind of solution! Outstanding!