Scientists Turn Nuclear Waste Into Diamond Batteries (newatlas.com) 156
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.
Long range space probes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems like this kind of technology would be very useful for long duration space probes.
Samsung s8 nuclear edition (Score:1)
The phone to hot to keep in stores
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Long range space probes? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Seems like this kind of technology would be very useful for long duration space probes.
Project Starshot perphaps? https://breakthroughinitiative... [breakthrou...atives.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
> 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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
De Beers Marketing (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Have you tried sudo?
Sounds great (Score:1)
Crush the diamond and the SNORT it (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
First Crystal Meth, now Diamond Cocaine.
Energy input. (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the energy input required to create this vs the energy it will output?
Re:Energy input. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Not that simple ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Question for De Beers: (Score:1)
What's the half-life of forever?
Re: (Score:2)
Energy Crystals (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To the Stargate!
Brilliant research (Score:5, Insightful)
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. [wavewatching.net]
Re:Brilliant research (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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/... [wikipedia.org]
"End of American cooperation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
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: (Score:3)
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).
Carbon-14 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now we know the world was made 5000 years ago. All our dating is off because Adam and Eve were playing with Nuclear batteries.
Hmmmmmm (Score:3)
Sounds too good to be true....but let's see what comes of it.
Rad-shield plus power source (Score:1)
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! (Score:4, Informative)
Energy density (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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-neutrin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Unlike my high maintenence mechanical batteries... (Score:2)
Okay, I'm not criticising the basic idea here, but this list of benefits applies to all batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not technical. (Score:2, Insightful)
The technical challenges were mostly solved decades ago. Since then it has just been political.
Do people actually know rough performance? (Score:2)
Do these have a potential use in satellites or are they too heavy? How about pacemakers? Or is the radiation shielding inadequate?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
So... about 400,000 lbs of these batteries to power the average Western home?
You're going to need a dedicated outbuilding for that!
Nice...let's see it power something useful (Score:2)
nuclear diamond battery (Score:2)
A good idea until they put them in phones and they explode in your back pocket.
No mention of Voltage or Current - HEY SLASHDOT (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Pylon Crystals! (Score:2)
Land of the Lost - Sleestak Pylon Control Panels here we come!
Re:Can't wait to get one in my watch. (Score:4, Informative)
You don't eat bananas [wikipedia.org], 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: (Score:3)
Hulk love bananas!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2010 called and...
...I certainly hope you warned them about the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
overview [wikipedia.org]. Also here [nih.gov] and here [nih.gov].
Finally, here [nih.gov].
Please be a bit more careful where you throw that bullcrap. And WASH YOUR HANDS!
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3)
It's considered good practice to remove them before cremation; but there are surprisingly few unpleasant stories.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 radiatio
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, power your bitcoin asic ... (Score:4, Informative)
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 ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I've got a small amount of a transuranic element in my house. I consider that really cool.
Re: (Score:2)
There are still a few plutonium powered pacemakers out there. No disasters happened and they don't even have their batteries encased in diamond.
As long as the case is a molecule thick (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Get an old glow-in-the-dark watch instead - the Radium on the dial is a nice alpha-emitter, for about 1600 years
Re: (Score:2)
Almost certainly not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Many exit signs and gun sights use radioluminescent paint (with tritium if I remember correctly).
Re: (Score:2)