Penny-Sized Nuclear Batteries Developed 444
pickens writes "Nuclear batteries that produce energy from the decay of radioisotopes are an attractive proposition for many applications because the isotopes that power them can provide a useful amount of current for hundreds of years at power densities a million times as high as standard batteries. Nuclear batteries have been used for military and aerospace applications for years, their large size has limited their general usage. But now a research team at the University of Missouri has developed a nuclear battery the size of a penny that could be used to power micro- and nano-electromechanical systems. The researchers' innovation is not only in the battery's size, but also that the batteries use a liquid semiconductor rather than a solid semiconductor. 'The critical part of using a radioactive battery is that when you harvest the energy, part of the radiation energy can damage the lattice structure of the solid semiconductor,' says Jae Wan Kwon. 'By using a liquid semiconductor, we believe we can minimize that problem.' The batteries are safe under normal operating conditions. 'People hear the word "nuclear" and think of something very dangerous,' says Kwon. 'However, nuclear power sources have already been safely powering a variety of devices, such as pacemakers, space satellites, and underwater systems.'"
ohhhhh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know this a joke, but it does remind me of something. One of the arguments that people on the far right have tried to use to convince the public that Iran is trying to build bombs and not energy is: "Iran has so much oil, why would they care about nuclear energy?"
Easy, sherlock... they aren't going to have oil forever. Iran might be thinking ahead. They might not want to make the same mistake that the U.S. made it comes to oil dependency.
Having said that, I still think that Iran's program is to make a
Re:ohhhhh... (Score:5, Informative)
Iran has crude oil. What they *don't* have is gasoline...fuel oil...asphalt...and so on. Iran has very little in the way of refining capability (it didn't help that a large chunk of their refineries got blown up in the Iraq-Iran war). In fact, one of the sanctions that's been discussed for Iran is cutting off their gasoline supply.
Re:ohhhhh... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Iraq-Iran war [wikipedia.org] was over 20 years ago. They could have rebuilt their refining capabilities by now had they chosen to do so.
Re:So what do you think about the type of plants (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First off, you can use either light or heavy water reactor to make plutonium, it makes little difference except that a short cycle (typical but not necessary of heavy water reactors) makes better plutonium.
Enrichment is necessary for light water but not heavy water, although it can be economically beneficial for a heavy water reactor.
Heavy water reactors are no bigger, except that the capital costs makes large ones more viable.
The big
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to long ago they didn't have any capacity to build any nuclear facilities, now they have plenty of capacity. If they managed to get from zero to nuclear power in such a short term, why can't they get their oil industry back on line again? I doubt everyone knowing anything about oil refinery have fled the country, or died in the war with Iraq.
Re:ohhhhh... (Score:4, Informative)
From TFA:
"To provide enough power, we need certain methods with high energy density," said Jae Kwon, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at MU. "The radioisotope battery can provide power density that is six orders of magnitude higher than chemical batteries."
Power density.
Re:ohhhhh... (Score:4, Insightful)
They misspoke or were written down wrong. Six orders of magnitude more power density than chemical batteries wouldn't be a battery. It'd be a bomb. Further evidence toward a mistake is that they were just talking about "high energy density".
Why do so many people confuse energy and power?
Re:ohhhhh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Easy, sherlock... they aren't going to have oil forever. Iran might be thinking ahead. They might not want to make the same mistake that the U.S. made it comes to oil dependency.
Or, they could figure that it's bloody stupid to burn their own oil for power when they could sell it on the market as global supplies dwindle and/or demand rises. Better to use nuclear to generate electricity and use the fossil fuels to provide revenue for the future.
Re:ohhhhh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Even better: burning oil in combustion engines is retarded. We need that oil to power modern industries like plastics and high tech engineering.
Re:ohhhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Iran has so much oil, why would they care about nuclear energy?"
For the same reason Canada does.
Canada has almost as much oil as Iran and has a large civil nuclear power program. Here in Ontario we get about half our electricity from nuclear power, despite all that oil in Alberta and elsewhere.
So anyone bringing this point up about Iran is just demonstrating their complete ignorance of the world, and disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously regarding American foreign policy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that, I still think that Iran's program is to make a bomb...
Nahh, having a bomb is really a fringe benefit. Pakistan has bombs, North Korea has bombs, and it doesn't stop those countries from being shit-holes. Having a bomb does not immediately confer upon you God-like abilities. Though it does tend to make warmongering politicians pause a little.
Iran would rather have our wealth by maximizing sale of crude, and keep on exporting oil. Hell when oil was at $15
Re:ohhhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I agree. Having a bomb-making capability is certainly a fringe benefit. However in today's energy-starved world, nuclear power makes sense for ANY nation, and ESPECIALLY for an oil exporting nation. Because if they end up consuming their own exports, what ELSE are they going to export? Sand? Dates?
There is a valid argument for a nuclear powered Iran without even considering nuclear weapons. But, as you said, having some would certainly be a bonus.
Cars??? (Score:5, Interesting)
So lets scale these up and replace the power pakcs on cars!
I would love to be able to drive for a few hundred years between recharges!
Re:Cars??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cars??? (Score:5, Funny)
We can just say its "nucular" and be all cute like George W.
The world will never know the truth!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cars??? (Score:5, Interesting)
So don't call it "nuclear decay." That just sounds bad all around.
Use a tried and proven practice by inventing a euphemism for "nuclear decay." How about "elemental ebbing," or "EE" for short?
Joe Public would definitely buy something labeled, "Powered by EE, as in grEEn!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, "nuclear decay" sounds nasty and horrible.
Marketing has an idea to replace it with something much more enticing:
"The penny-sized battery -- powered by Kitten Purrs!"
Re:Cars??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cars??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Atomic.
Atomic battery. Seriously, it's all quaint and 1950s. Still a little cool and scary, but also fully controllable.
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were Nuclear Power Plants, generating Nuclear Power. We want to build Atomic Energy Stations that generate Atomic Energy. See the difference in how it sounds?
Nuclear fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear materials usually are not very dangerous for their nuclear properties. For most nuclear materials your skin is all the protection you need. You can get irradiated if you ingest it, which is how Nuclear medicines intnetionally work. But in many cases nuclear materials like Plutonium are more toxic as chemicals then they are dangerous as radioactive materials. You would not intentionally eat battery acid either, and evidently people don't do it accidentally very often either. The death rate from plutonium ingestion would presumably be about the same as the death rate from people ingesting car batteries.
The upside of nuclear materials is that unlike trace chemical contamination, which is hard to find and hard to clean up (e.g. think ancient leaking service station gas tanks contaminating well water), nuclear contamination is easy to find, easy to trace and easy to know when you have cleaned it all up.
would a single hundred year nuclear battery be less harmful to the enviroment or humans than a hundred years of mercury cadmium telluride hearing aid batteries and all the waste products to mine, produce and transport them?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Meh, call it "material power", put it in a AA form factor, and sell it for $20 as a "forever battery".
Forever batteries -- now with 400,000 Ah capacity. Take pictures until your camera breaks. Never charge your Wiimotes. Keep your family safe with never-dying smoke detectors.
and the kicker:
your cell phone will never run out of power.
Joe Public will be lining up around the block to get their hands on these bad boys.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Put a $2 deposit on them and you'll have most of them returned. The rest will be picked up by the same meth-heads who go through the garbage cans for pop bottles.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then I guess you should rejoice. Chernobyl failed due to a technical flaw that allowed human stupidity to cause the melt down. The flaw was fundemental to Chernobyl's design. Chernobyl
Re: (Score:2)
If it were that big, the lead shielding required would make an SUV look light.
(and before anyone screams "troll!", let me quote TFA: "but the particles' extremely high energies means...")
('course, I could be way the hell wrong about it, but it seems that a car-sized isotope battery would churn out a hellish amount of particles considering the amperage rating).
Re:Cars??? (Score:5, Funny)
but it seems that a car-sized isotope battery would
It would be difficult to fit a battery the size of a car into a car....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I bet this is a based on beta emissions and not heat. So it is basically a direct radiation to electricity conversion. You could use tritium as the source or any other beta emitter.
If it is I don't know if I would want it implated in a pace maker. All the common beta emitters are things you really don't want in you system. They are all biologically active.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like they would almost serve in cars as-is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well you'd need a Mr. Fusion machine. Then it would be easy.
But since nuclear fusion is a dream unachievable outside mathematical formulas, billion dollar labs where they can produce a picogram or so of new stuff, and THE SUN, I doubt that it's going to happen anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it's mostly fission...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You don't recharge it. You use it for a thousand years, then throw it into a landfill. Or a nearby star.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I swear if that happens I'll start a campaign and website.
There's simply NO WAY that such a cool technology could not make it to market. It would be amazing for so many reasons.
Re:Cars??? (Score:4, Interesting)
IF they're talking about an RTG, I'd rule that right out. I'm not fond of the idea of every car in the country carrying hundreds of kilograms of highly radioactive isotopes around when manufacturing defects are inevitable and there are 6.3 million car crashes and 260,000 car fires every year.
On the other hand, it sounds like what they're describing is actually betavoltaics (God, I hate it when science articles are this vague...). If that's the case, no big deal. Betavoltaics use tritium as the fuel, and tritium is less dangerous than, say, the lead in your lead-acid battery. It's a very weak radiation (can't penetrate skin, doesn't go very far through air), and when ingested, the tritium (generally being in the form of water) has a very short residency in the body.
The problem with scaling up betavoltaics is supply. How can you supply that much tritium in any remotely affordable manner? It just doesn't seem plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cars??? No. Off-grid. (Score:2)
Re:Cars??? (Score:5, Funny)
Rated in Nanoamps (Score:3, Informative)
It would be great to replace the power packs of everything with them, but they are currently rated in nanoamps of output and microvolts of potential. Scaling them up (and making them cost less than $1 million for a AA cell) is the challenge and its a big one that will take a lot of work.
Shielding isn't a big problem incidentally.From other articles one of the popular nuclear sources is tritium which is used on gunsights and stairwell markings. Half life is pretty short and shielding level required is skin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So lets scale these up and replace the power pakcs on cars!
I would love to be able to drive for a few hundred years between recharges!
Screw the car, I want this on my next laptop.
This is impressive (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Power density or energy? (Score:2)
The announcement says that these nuclear batteries have power densities a million times larger than standard batteries. That can't possibly be right unless it meant energy density instead.
Cool stuff even so!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
TFA mentions nothing about the actual power these things can put out.
A power source that lasts forever is suddenly not very useful if it only delivers a few milliwatts. I can see its uses, but it won't be replacing lithium ion batteries in phones and laptops any time soon.
Re:Power density or energy? (Score:4, Funny)
...powering the pump for the artificial hearth...
What, you mean like one of these? [hansenwholesale.com]
Nuclear isn't the problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
Everything is safe under "normal conditions"
The problem is that normal people are fucking stupid. Imagine the shitstorm when someone disassembles one of these to "see what's inside."
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
...or puts one in a laptop :?
Re: (Score:2)
Already been done [wikipedia.org]. Guess he was one of the first "researchers".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I got modded "funny" for proposing a scenario where a guy contaminates everything he touches because he disassembled one of these types of battery.
They found traces of Po210 *everywhere* in the case of Litvinenko, even on the plane the assassin flew in. The assassin was trained in how to handle Po210 so he wouldn't kill himself yet he left traces of Po210 all the way from Moscow.
I know there are Po210 based anti-static brushes that professional photographers use. These are sealed, and your typical mouthbr
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Everything is safe under "normal conditions"
The problem is that normal people are fucking stupid. Imagine the shitstorm when someone disassembles one of these to "see what's inside."
-- BMO
Saying that is like implying that everything is intrinsically safe, and it's humans which will invariably mess things up just because it's possible. In a way you're right, people will do stupid things regardless, but things are designed/exist as (less) safer than other things. Guns kill people under normal conditions, knives cut people under normal conditions, tear gas aggrivates parts of peoples' eyes under normal conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Glow in the dark toys and stickers, as well as watches with phosphorescent hands, contain radioactive isotopes (mainly thorium). The amount of radioactive material in those batteries is likely on par with the aforementioned items. Remember that the intended use for those is to power extremely tiny devices that need to operate constantly, not to replace AA batteries, so the required amount of power is very small.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like some stupid person decides to order a ton of smoke detectors, remove all the Americium, and build himself a reactor in his back yard. That would NEVER happen [wikipedia.org]. Well, only with a stupid person. Never an Eagle scout. Never ever.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think that would make for an interesting episode of "Will it blend?". Up this week: a nuclear battery!
Re:Nuclear isn't the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which isn't all that much better with other kinds of batteries.
It's one thing to clean up after someone drilled a hole in a Lithium battery and had it flame up.
It's another to decontaminate the livingroom, car, Starbucks counter the guy stopped at for his coffee, etc, because he got liquid radioactive semiconductor on his fingers and wiped it on his pants.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Actually cleaning up low level radiation like this isn't that hard. Plus you can tell when your done or not with a geiger counter.
There's already radioactive material in many electronics such as fire alarms. A link [digitalspy.co.uk] Not the most technical link, but it think it captures the spirit of the problem. And it contains a fun quote "If your smoke alarm is on fire you have bigger things to worry about"
Re: (Score:2)
I read the thread
When you've only got 33,000 atoms decaying per second, it's well below the threshold of being able to power something. The Americium isn't even powering anything. It's there to trigger an SCR latch powered by a 9v battery.
This is something far different. I don't feel like doing the math, but scaling this up to 50 watts to power a laptop is going to require more oomph than what's in a gamma ray smoke detector.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Still, worth the risk to run my ipod forever
So that now when your iPod explodes it leaves your shadow burned onto the wall?
Pacemakers? (Score:2)
Come on now, Iron Man isn't real!
Re: (Score:2)
He's still real to me, damnit!
Re:Pacemakers? (Score:4, Informative)
Come on now, Iron Man isn't real!
That wasn't nuclear power, that was an Arc Reactor. Which is short for Story Arc Plot Hole Reactor. It runs on the writer's need for an infinite power source.
Ya Ok.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yikes, I'd hate to have one of those batteries do a "China Syndrome" through my lap.
Then again, I could probably heat my greenhouse with one during winter.
Foundation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you know darned well that "100s of years" is, like, on standby when you're in a totally great signal area. It'll still only last 4-6 hours if your surfing and playing flash games on it. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because you'll keep using the same phone for hundreds of years.
Domestic terrorism has never been easier (Score:2)
"The batteries are safe under normal operating conditions."
Ergo, instant nuclear bomb; just add sledge hammer. ;)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, this isn't even close to accurate. Nuclear chain-reactions only occur under a very specific set of conditions, and some guy with a sledgehammer doesn't come close to qualifying.
I know you were half joking and not entirely serious, but it's this sort of ignorance that the idiotic population cling to as an argument not to use nuclear power, thereby holding us back for decades in using a plentiful, clean, and efficient source of power.
Of course, the same idiots that hate the pollution produced by coal po
How much voltage/current? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How much voltage/current? (Score:4, Interesting)
The "problem" is that the current would not be variable. The amount of electrons produced would be consistent (or perhaps slowly reduce as the elements decay). The article says that it contains a "million times as much charge as standard batteries". True, but it might take 100 years of decay to produce those electrons.
So this would be fine for something that draws a consistent amount of current, like a wristwatch (not counting the backlight), but for most applications this power source would have to be coupled with an actual battery or capacitor to store the continuously emitted electrons for use on demand, or to provide bursts of current, etc.
So this would be more like a trickle battery charger than an actual battery.
Re:How much voltage/current? (Score:4, Informative)
According to http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/liquid-nuclear-battery-that-could-have.html, which quotes the published paper, the battery provides 16.2 nW, has open-circuit voltage of 899 mV, and short-circuit current of 107.4 nA. When they talk about micro- and nano-mechanical applications, they're not kidding. It would take a stack of 61,728,395 of them to provide 1 watt.
Niche applications (Score:3, Interesting)
A fairly obvious application would be long-life smoke detectors, since they already contain radioactive materials. You could stick one up on a vaulted ceiling and forget about it for 10 years...
Re: (Score:2)
Vindicated. . . (Score:2)
Ok, maybe I'm jumping the gun on this one, but in a recent /. article about phones not having enough battery life, I sort of tongue-in-cheek proposed atomic batteries [slashdot.org] for powering the phones. Maybe I'm not so far off the mark?
I'm not sure though - these batteries might not provide sufficiently high wattage to power the phones? Still, maybe you could have self-recharging cell phones? Couple one or two of these small atomic batteries with something more conventional, like Li-ions, (or, in the future, perhaps
I don't want one in my iPod (Score:2)
They already glow with the batteries they have now! But at least that is a pink/red glow, I'm pretty sure an iPod glowing green would be a Bad Thing (tm).
That said, having the black/white iPod commercials change to black/green would be interesting. Kind of bring back the black/green monochrome monitor nostalga.
Is that a tiny nuclear device in your pocket? (Score:2)
.... or are you just happy to see me?
[obligatory... i'm sorry]
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! That's a good idea, actually.
Enough nuclear devices in enough pants pockets and you could helps solve the over-population problem! No more sperm to worry about!
Either that, our your children turn out hideously ugly.
Best Part of the Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
'However, nuclear power sources have already been safely powering a variety of devices, such as pacemakers, space satellites, and underwater systems.'"
If this quote even reaches only one anti-nuclear nutjob and opens their eyes, just a little, to the benefits that nuclear energy can provide when handled safely and appropriately, then the world will be a slightly better place. This message needs to get spread around and stated by every single physicist, engineer, mathematician, and wrench monkey that works in any field associated with nuclear energy. It needs to be stated in every single press conference, peer-reviewed journal, and twitter feed by anyone talking about the subject that has any authority. Simply by throwing this short little blip into his discussion, Jae Wan Kwon has already earned more respect in my eyes than Michio Kaku...
Asimov Tech (Score:2)
You know, this sounds distinctly like the sort of power sources that were ubiquitous in a lot of Asimov's sci-fi, e.g., the foundation series. When I was reading that, I noted that he clearly thought that shortly everything in society would run on nuclear power. In one book, they even talked about the decay of a society until, gasp!, they went back to primitive fossil fuels. I figure that irrational fear of nuclear power and radiation is one reason why this has not come to pass, but maybe now it will.
This is great. (Score:2)
This is NOT a battery, it's a RTG (Score:4, Interesting)
Something that produces energy from the decay of radioisotopes is called a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) whereas a battery is an array of electrochemical cells for electricity storage.
3 Mile Island and more recently Chernobyl have our society so afraid of nuclear power, the dreaded China syndrome, that regardless of how safe it becomes we will refuse to adopt it.
RTG technology is the safest way to produce energy and the greenest energy known to man. It takes something that would otherwise be dangerous and turns it into something productive. NASA uses this technology to power space probes, Voyager-1 is still being powered by one today, and will continue to do so until the year 2025. Plutonium 238 is the best fuel for a RTG, because of its long half-life and the fact that it cannot (yes CANNOT) sustain a chain reaction is somehow any of it started to fuse.
I looked into this technology when I built a mini robotic submarine in graduate school. But, that's when I found out two things: 1) I would have to submit to an anal probe before the Nuclear Regulatory Commiseration (NRC) would denied me the right to posses any more radioactive material than can be found in about 3 smoke detectors and 2) The room, labeled radioactive storage, in the Science building, where I attended University, with the big yellow radioactive sign is there to impress benefactors and since it lacks a smoke detector contains no radioactive material (LOL).
Improvements in power generation from nuclear fuel has become pretty safe over the last few years. Pebble bed reactor technology can theoretically remain stable indefinitely even without external cooling, though I don't think that has been put to the test. But, to be a viable energy solution a country really needs to adopt this method on mass because each reactor can only power a portion of a city so to be a major benefit a country would have one of these in everyone's backyard. RTG technology is even safer. It generates energy from the heat that occurs from the natural decay of a nuclear fuel.
If I could get my hands on say an ounce of Pu 238 I could build a RTG that would power my home, all my vehicles, and enable me to quit my job and live of the check my local electricity provider would have to pay me for the excess power I would generate. It would generate full power for ~ 87 years and not only wold I be using the greenest power available I would be providing a community service of disposing of a radioactive material.
But, echelon might flag me for even writing this post (looks around nervously)... The irrational fear of a China Syndrome scenario combined with the recent dose of terrorism (fear of dirty bombs) would never allow me to build one, even if I was a nuclear scientist, which I am not.
So, make an inventory of the smoke detectors you own. If the total is above 3 then you are in possession of enough nuclear material that would require you to get a license from the NRC. If you don't have a license from the NRC and own more than 3 smoke detectors you are likely in possession of an illegal amount of barium and could be flagged as an enemy combative and thanks to George W. Bush enemy combative have no right to any legal representation and can be summarily executed or detained for an indefinite amount of time without even informing anyone that they took you into custody.
Heck, I don't need smoke detectors that much!
Nick Powers
WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
Something that produces energy from the decay of radioisotopes is called a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) whereas a battery is an array of electrochemical cells for electricity storage.
You didn't read the article.
The batteries use Sulfur-35 which is a beta emitter. Aka, electrons. They do not use thermocouples at all.
Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaics [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"So, make an inventory of the smoke detectors you own. If the total is above 3 then you are in possession of enough nuclear material that would require you to get a license from the NRC. If you don't have a license from the NRC and own more than 3 smoke detectors you are likely in possession of an illegal amount of barium and could be flagged as an enemy combative and thanks to George W. Bush enemy combative have no right to any legal representation and can be summarily executed or detained for an indefinit
Pacemaker power? (Score:5, Interesting)
nuclear power sources have already been safely powering a variety of devices, such as pacemakers
Considering my pacemaker battery needs replacing every 5 years (and I'm just 41) by cutting into my shoulder, I'd like very much to know more.
Declassifying Beta Decay isotopes lighter than Fe. (Score:3, Interesting)
They really need to declassify Beta Decay Isotoped lighter than Iron as Dangerous or terrorist materials. Beta Decay is pretty damned harmless and you cannot use it to 'Breed" other nuclear materials like you can with Neutron/Gamma/ or even alpha decay sources. Also if the decay substance is an element lighter than iron you cannot get any usable energy out of it if it Fissions. You can only get energy out of it by having the neutrons decay into Protons and eject a electron. (electricity which can be used)
Electrons will never get inside the core of another atom to change the atomic structure and therefor are not useful at all when it comes to making inert elements radioactive.
Maybe we could make large Nuclear waste processing plants that use heavy volatile elements that gamma or neutron decay to breed large amounts of light elements that beta decay, then ship the material to regional "power plants" that are nothing more than large Light element Nuclear RTG/Beta batteries.
The greenie weenies would never stand to let such a project be built because they are weenies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Battery disposal is the first thing that comes to mind (as well as the "idiot throwing one into a fire" that come up above these comments), however if you create batteries that last A LOT longer, doesn't disposal become *less* of a problem? It doesn't go away, but if the batteries last as long as advertised doesn't it mean we need a lot less space to store the waste (but the waste might be a heck of a lot more toxic)?
Re: (Score:2)
Gives "exploding laptop" a whole new sense...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or the Thorium in Coleman lantern mantels?
Or Radium/ Tritium in watch dials?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is not an RTG. RTG devices run pretty hot - thermal, you get it.
What these devices do is output an incredibly small amount of electricity from the actual radioactive decay of materials. Incredibly small. Microwatts.
They are used in pacemakers and the like because of extremely low power requirements - less than a watch - and the need for a stable power source that will last years and years.
It might be possible to stack up 100 of these to power a single LED. That is the level of output from these devic