Scientists Build a Nuclear-Diamond Battery That Could Power Devices for Thousands of Years (livescience.com) 41
The world's first nuclear-powered battery — a diamond with an embedded radioactive isotope — could power small devices for thousands of years, according to scientists at the UK's University of Bristol.
Long-time Slashdot reader fahrbot-bot shared this report from LiveScience: The diamond battery harvests fast-moving electrons excited by radiation, similar to how solar power uses photovoltaic cells to convert photons into electricity, the scientists said.
Scientists from the same university first demonstrated a prototype diamond battery — which used nickel-63 as the radioactive source — in 2017. In the new project, the team developed a battery made of carbon-14 radioactive isotopes embedded in manufactured diamonds. The researchers chose carbon-14 as the source material because it emits short-range radiation, which is quickly absorbed by any solid material — meaning there are no concerns about harm from the radiation. Although carbon-14 would be dangerous to ingest or touch with bare hands, the diamond that holds it prevents any short-range radiation from escaping. "Diamond is the hardest substance known to man; there is literally nothing we could use that could offer more protection," Neil Fox, a professor of materials for energy at the University of Bristol, said in the statement...
A single nuclear-diamond battery containing 0.04 ounce (1 gram) of carbon-14 could deliver 15 joules of electricity per day. For comparison, a standard alkaline AA battery, which weighs about 0.7 ounces (20 grams), has an energy-storage rating of 700 joules per gram. It delivers more power than the nuclear-diamond battery would in the short term, but it would be exhausted within 24 hours. By contrast, the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, which means the battery would take that long to be depleted to 50% power....
[A] spacecraft powered by a carbon-14 diamond battery would reach Alpha Centauri — our nearest stellar neighbor, which is about 4.4 light-years from Earth — long before its power were significantly depleted.
The battery has no moving parts, according to the article. It "requires no maintenance, nor does it have any carbon emissions."
Long-time Slashdot reader fahrbot-bot shared this report from LiveScience: The diamond battery harvests fast-moving electrons excited by radiation, similar to how solar power uses photovoltaic cells to convert photons into electricity, the scientists said.
Scientists from the same university first demonstrated a prototype diamond battery — which used nickel-63 as the radioactive source — in 2017. In the new project, the team developed a battery made of carbon-14 radioactive isotopes embedded in manufactured diamonds. The researchers chose carbon-14 as the source material because it emits short-range radiation, which is quickly absorbed by any solid material — meaning there are no concerns about harm from the radiation. Although carbon-14 would be dangerous to ingest or touch with bare hands, the diamond that holds it prevents any short-range radiation from escaping. "Diamond is the hardest substance known to man; there is literally nothing we could use that could offer more protection," Neil Fox, a professor of materials for energy at the University of Bristol, said in the statement...
A single nuclear-diamond battery containing 0.04 ounce (1 gram) of carbon-14 could deliver 15 joules of electricity per day. For comparison, a standard alkaline AA battery, which weighs about 0.7 ounces (20 grams), has an energy-storage rating of 700 joules per gram. It delivers more power than the nuclear-diamond battery would in the short term, but it would be exhausted within 24 hours. By contrast, the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, which means the battery would take that long to be depleted to 50% power....
[A] spacecraft powered by a carbon-14 diamond battery would reach Alpha Centauri — our nearest stellar neighbor, which is about 4.4 light-years from Earth — long before its power were significantly depleted.
The battery has no moving parts, according to the article. It "requires no maintenance, nor does it have any carbon emissions."
Uh huh (Score:3, Insightful)
"Devices" as in what? This battery probably gives femtoamps. And we get excited when a radio floating in space lasts 50 years, we have zero experience building electrical devices that last thousands of years.
And I have yet to see any excitement for life extension, so using a time span of thousands of years appeals to who?
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
"Devices" as in what? This battery probably gives femtoamps. And we get excited when a radio floating in space lasts 50 years, we have zero experience building electrical devices that last thousands of years. And I have yet to see any excitement for life extension, so using a time span of thousands of years appeals to who?
A joule is a watt second so it can supply 15 watt seconds averaged over a day or 170 microwatts continuously if that tidbit is correct. Amps is just flow, makes for improper comparison when batteries have different voltage ranges. with no voltage there is no actual power, just like with voltage and no flow. This makes for an excellent power for memory or ultra low power sensors and processors.
Re: (Score:1)
Amps, volts, or ohms are still useful here, in order to describe the optimal load. For a completely overexaggerated example, if the battery has an internal resistance of 1 teraohm, it means that, for practical output voltages, it acts as a constant current source of 0.026 microamps, no matter the voltage, and the majority of energy is wasted. To get the claimed 170 microwatts, you would need to allow the output terminals to charge to 13 KV (which would then reduce the output current by half), something comp
Re: (Score:2)
Amps, volts, or ohms are still useful here, in order to describe the optimal load. For a completely overexaggerated example, if the battery has an internal resistance of 1 teraohm, it means that, for practical output voltages, it acts as a constant current source
Its probably easier to realize maximum power transfer happens when the internal resistance of the load and source match, thus the optimal load would have 1 teraohm as well with more or less resistance providing less power to the load. So you have it backwards, battery manufacturers rarely include very important data such actual capacity vs discharge rates, self discharge rates over temperature and state of charge ranges, on and on, which do affect chemical batteries as well as these though differently. Mo
Re: (Score:3)
That would be very useful for a lot of sensors. It's enough energy to send a transmission every day, and take some readings.
Even if the electronics only last several decades that would be a huge improvement on current 5-10 year battery lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From the press release linked in the article:
Several game-changing applications are possible. Bio-compatible diamond batteries can be used in medical devices like ocular implants, hearing aids, and pacemakers, minimizing the need for replacements and distress to patients.
“Diamond batteries offer a safe, sustainable way to provide continuous microwatt levels of power. They are an emerging technology that use a manufactured diamond to safely encase small amounts of carbon-14,” said Sarah Clark, Director of Tritium Fuel Cycle at UKAEA.
A team of scientists and engineers from both organizations worked together to build a plasma deposition rig, a specialized apparatus used for growing the diamond at UKAEA’s Culham Campus.
Re: (Score:2)
Having a nuclear-powered battery in your ear sounds interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
At least it does not emit carbon into you ear, so that’s a plus, right?
Re: (Score:2)
"Devices" as in what? This battery probably gives femtoamps. And we get excited when a radio floating in space lasts 50 years, we have zero experience building electrical devices that last thousands of years.
And I have yet to see any excitement for life extension, so using a time span of thousands of years appeals to who?
Crystal radios don't even need a battery, no power source other than the radio waves!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's about 4 practical uses, one of them dangerous: ...
- Robots (think UInmaned Aerial Vehicles, quad-copter style.) I think these are practical for small robots that are used for surveillance or door-to-door delivery, but
- Light aircraft. Diamonds are hard, but they are not indestructible, they can chip, so an accident involving an aircraft with these as power might be as bad as dropping a depleted uranium bomb on a site.
- Black boxes for air, sea, rail and road vehicles. They'd of course have t
Scientists report (Score:3)
I think this was mentioned a few years ago... (Score:2)
I remember this being mentioned a while back. It seems improved, with it almost 1/50 the power of a conventional battery per gram. However, for low voltage applications, where a few millivolts is good enough, perhaps as a watchdog circuit to wake everything up if a sensor detects a threshold, this would be quite useful. Or maybe even scale it up a bit more, and it could be used for a low power radio (think AirTag) to protect some item indefinitely.
Overall, a promising technology. I'm glad this has been
Re: (Score:2)
I remember this being mentioned a while back. It seems improved, with it almost 1/50 the power of a conventional battery per gram. However, for low voltage applications, where a few millivolts is good enough, perhaps as a watchdog circuit to wake everything up if a sensor detects a threshold, this would be quite useful. Or maybe even scale it up a bit more, and it could be used for a low power radio (think AirTag) to protect some item indefinitely.
Overall, a promising technology. I'm glad this has been improved on.
> a watchdog circuit to wake everything up if a sensor detects a threshold
Why not use the same power source which powers the circuit then? Just leave the circuit in sleep mode, the bigger batteries will have to be maintained anyway even if the circuit seldom powers up and the circuit will have to be tested once so often. The tiny battery mentioned in TFA wouldn't make any difference anyway since it provides negligible power in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Because while this might have much lower power, it has much more energy?
That said, consider the example:
1 gram = 15 Joules/day. It's 0.173 watts/kg
AA battery = 20 grams, 700 joules.
Adjusting up to 20 grams, the nuclear battery could produce 300 joules/day. It is capable of producing more energy than the AA in 56 hours. While being able to last centuries.
A use case for having a split power system might be a smoke alarm, for example. A standard 9V battery can power one for a year, even with monthly tests.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the alkaline battery outputs the energy mostly as electricity (+ a bit of heat), whereas this presumably outputs it as nuclear radiation which needs to be converted to electricity. How efficient is this process? We already have polonium batteries, so presumably this can work in the same way as them.
Re: I think this was mentioned a few years ago... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The summary says the AA is 700 joule per gram.
So it'd be about 2 months to equal a single battery.
clickbait horseshit? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What do they mean "first nuclear battery?"
It is a result of a cascade of stupidity. From poor writing in the article, to EditorDavid adding the crowning touch. I think it started with somebody saying it was the first prototype of a carbon-14 diamond battery.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear batteries are very old tech. What's new in this case is the diamond encapsulation, which, one hopes, prevents nuclear leaks for the foreseeable future.
Crystal structure won't last (Score:4, Interesting)
Carbon has four bonds, nitrogen three. As the carbon 14 decays to nitrogen the diamond will fall apart. After one half-life the average composition will be cyanide.
Diluting the C14 will extend the life of the crystal structure at the cost of increasing the weight of the power unit.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a battery (Score:2)
oh not this stupidity again (Score:2)
These things produce less power than the average termite fart. They have extremely limited applications, such as bios batteries and low power clocks. I recall seeing one discussing "self-recharging AA batteries", which is fine if you are okay with your AA taking 15 years to recharge. They're absolutely worthless to the average consumer.
Go to YouTube and search for "debunk nuclear battery" for several educational videos from well-know and respected presenters. I especially liked EEVblog's video on the su
Re: (Score:1)
These things produce less power than the average termite fart.
How convenient! I just finished designing an interstellar spaceship drive that's powered by termite microfarts, but haven't been able to figure out how to keep the termites alive during the long trip.
Comparison very bad (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You write like a language model trained on engrish.
Great with collapsing diamond prices (Score:1)
I hope it still works... (Score:2)
It should, the power cells have a half-life of five thousand years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Slashdot (Score:2)
We have these now?! (Score:2)
There is at least one Company in California making these for medical devices for a while now. How is this news?
Let's Do the Math! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How much trouble is it to replace a AA battery in a low-draw device every 2.5 years?
So you're quite happy to undergo a major operation every 2.5 years for the rest of your life to have that pacemaker battery replaced?
Re: (Score:1)
Short-range radiation only? (Score:2)
The "short-range radiation" is clearly alpha-particles. I learned this stuff decades ago, but if you have radioactive decay producing alpha particles, beta particles will also be produced (and I can't remember if there are any circumstances where gamma rays are not produced). I'm wondering how th
Re: (Score:2)
The "short-range radiation" is clearly alpha-particles.
It's beta decay and emits an electron. I'm not sure about the "dangerous to...touch with bare hands," since dead skin would absorb most of the energy with only the possibility of a beta burn if exposed to enough energy over time. Ingesting it might be more dangerous, just as you don't want to ingest alpha emitters, but then again our body already has C-14 in it, which is why carbon dating works.
Re: Short-range radiation only? (Score:2)
Someone played too much Day of the tentacle (Score:2)
Love to see this.