Personal Nuclear Power: New Battery Lasts 12 Years

[seriousstan]

A new type of battery based on the radioactive decay of nuclear material is 10 times more powerful than similar prototypes and should last a decade or more without a charge, scientists announced this week

The longevity would make the battery ideal for use in pacemakers or other surgically implanted devices, developers say, or it might power spacecraft or deep-sea probes


===cut====

The technology is called betavoltaics. It uses a silicon wafer to capture electrons emitted by a radioactive gas, such as tritium. It is similar to the mechanics of converting sunlight into electricity in a solar panel

===cut===cut


Tritium emits only low energy particles "that can be shielded by very thin materials, such as a sheet of paper," said Gadeken of BetaBatt. "The hermetically-sealed, metallic BetaBattery cases will encapsulate the entire radioactive energy source, just like a normal battery contains its chemical source so it cannot escape."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/personalnuclearpowernewbatterylasts12years

[SouthernDem2004]

1. Or vehicles... This is the type of research that needs to be done.

[salvorhardin]

2. Anyone remember

Asimov's "atomics"?

[struggle4progress]

3. As it's just been invented, we might hold back with grand predictions ...

... on what a glorious improvement it is over everything that exists now and how it's going to function trouble-free for a decade or more ...

It's still a prototype on a lab bench:

[salib]

4. Tritium is incredibly dangerous stuff

Much more than, say ammonia, which would be great in refrigerators and air conditioners. Why isn't it? Because it is too dangerous if it leaks.

These "betavoltaics" WILL leak. And, breathing in tritium, let alone having it inserted into your body as part of a medical device, is very serious. Not to mention manufacture, disposal and handling issues on industrial scales. Hey, let's make solar cells that are radioactive waste!

Do we really want to add an additional source of cancers to our society? Just use the sun, not radioactive materials.

[merwin]

5. A car battery is extremely dangerous if it leaks. An airplane is

exremely dangerous if it crashes. A suv is extremely dangerous if
the tire blows. Fact is, ANYTHING is dangerous. There is nothing you can do in life that is not in some way or another dangerous.

The benefits of something like this will far outweigh the risks. Think of how much waste and destruction we are causing with our current batteries. 500,000,000,000 alkaline batteries can cause a heck of a lot of problems when they are disposed of and eventually leak.

[salib]

8. There is always more than one alternative

Comparing risks and benefits is always a good idea. However, I am not assuming that it is simply a case of replacing 500B alkalines with 500B betatronic devices. I also ask why? Simply because we can?

Perhaps, if our decisions as a regulated society are based upon something more than that we can do it and it might be another opportunity to sell something, then I believe firmly that our society will last a great deal longer in a much improved way.

That said, an airplane is dangerous becuase it can crash. Go reason to emphacize commuter trains, telecommuting for business trips, etc.

An SUV is dangerous if a tire blows. Well, a commuter train is dangerous if the track fails. We can make so many such silly arguments. I really think that they are the wrong direction to argue.

So, back to batteries, or perhaps portable electic energy supplies, how much do we need to have higher and higher density energy storage devices on a small portable scale? Really? If we are to ask those questions, turly ask them and get answers, then just as we try to reduce the the amount of oil required to propel that SUV down the road but having fuel efficiency standards, couldn't we find a good way to manage the "need" for batteries?

But, more to the point still, a tritium based economy of any kind, I believe that the current state of the art for dealing with radioactive energy sources on industrial scales is a much greater "risk" than the current solutions, and is definitely headed in the wrong direction.

[tinrobot]

17. Two evils, which is less?

Global warming from burning carbon, air pollution, chemicals from billions of batteries, and so on....

Or radioactive waste from tritium...

It's all bad. Until we start consuming less energy, we're going to have to make a deal with the devil of some sort.

[Massacure]

35. Tritium only emits beta particles.

Its radiation won't penetrate skin.

I would not advocate using it for batteries to put inside people though; not without a lot of research to figure out the risks of effects from it.

[hunter]

32. The sun is a very dangerous nuclear reactor.

Thousands and thousands of people die every year from solar radiation induced cancers. Sunny Southern California was a dangerous place for me, I've had several cancers removed from my skin.

[Dcitizen]

6. Maybe organic solar cells would be important too.

Seem like the new solar cells are affordable, and can utilize in home energy as soon as the lab can increase their efficiency. However, I doubt these advanced technologies can be more economical and efficient than the gasoline for cars.

[merwin]

7. I haven't seen any solar cells that are efficient enough to pay

for themselves within 20 years. Efficiency needs to be greatly increased for that to happen.

[salib]

9. How do you mean "pay for themselves"?

Relative to current energy prices from non-renuable sources, perhaps? Not a fair comparison. That is much like saying that water from an aquafer is cheaper than pumping new water in, so pumping new water in will never pay for itself.

[merwin]

11. Do you think that Mr Average Joe is going to want to spend an extra

$20,000 to line his house with solar panels? That's really the only way to go about it in most places, since they are so inefficient currently.

[MadHound]

18. Yes, Average Joe IS putting up solar panels

Current solar technology has a forty year life span. Two kilowatts worth of panels pays for itself within twenty years at the current average price for electricity, and gee, once you've passed that break even point, you have free electric for the next twenty years.

Solar panels also add a lot of value to any house. Even if you're not around to reap in the electric savings, you will get your money back, and possibly more, on the panels that you've put in.

Also, many states still have tax credits, grants and other incentives that lower the costs of installing solar panels.

Just because you're not taking these energy saving steps doesn't mean everyone else isn't. Hell, even in my backward red state solar panels and windmills are starting to pop up everywhere like mushrooms. Even the local Christian TV station is being powered by a wind/solar combination.

[jpak]

20. In states with rebate programs

a 2 kW PV system will cost "Average Joe" ~$7,000 - the price of a used car. It would provide all Joe's juice and then some (whch he could sell back to the grid).

A 1 kW PV system will cost him $3,500 (a credit card purchase). This would provide much of Joe's electricity and save him double-digits on his monthly electric bill.

The payback time for either system is significantly less than 10 years and both would greatly improve his home's resale value..

[BronxBoy]

26. Really?

I am looking to add solar power to my home. We are in a location in GA that would be perfect for it. I'm a newbie and my investigations on the internet have not yielded any cost effective solutions. I would jump on a 7 grand solution in a heartbeat if it can do what you say.

Any links would be appreciated

[jpak]

28. Unfortunately Georgia doesn't have a solar rebate program

If you want to use "green energy", however, Georgia Power has an option - you pay an extra $5.50 a month to contract 100 kwh blocks of electricity from certified green energy generators...

http://www.southerncompany.com/gapower/green/faq.asp?mnuOpco=gpc&mnuType=sub&mnuItem=ge

Georgia does have net metering law (allowing you to sell excess solar electricity to the grid)...

http://gipl.org/archives/000043.html

You could always start with a small grid-intertie PV system (under $5k) and add PV modules as the cash becomes available. A lot of people have built PV systems this way...

[Massacure]

37. Read my post, number 36.

I looked up Georgia's sunshine hours. They look to be about 2,800 a year. You can take a look here:

For seven grand, you could probably get about a kilowatt and a half system, about 4,200 kw-hours per year.

Do you know how much energy you go through and how much you spend for it? Electricity prices tend to very by region, so 8 cents isn't a sure-fire answer for theoretical situations.

[BronxBoy]

39. Thanks

I appreciate both your replies.

I am going to do some research this weekend. We average close to $200 per month and our homne is situated in an ideal location for solar panel placement.

Thanks again.

[ZR2]

30. As long as the "average joe"

doeasn't want to heat or cool his home.

[Massacure]

36. Try again.

Most of the United States gets about 2,400-3,000 hours of sunshine per year excluding the desert regions in the southwest which gets 3,400 or more.

2 kw x 2,400 = 4,800 kw per year x 8 cents = $384 a year. It would take 18 years to pay off using your $7,000 figure.

But your making it cheaper than it really is.
http://www.solarbuzz.com/ModulePrices.htm

The average price between 2195 types of solar panels was $5.10. That would cost $10,200 for 2 KW power. Plus you need to add the cost of an inverter. At an average of $0.836 per watt, the inverter would cost you $1,672.

$11,872 divided by $384 is 31 years.
If we use 3,000 hours instead of 2,400 the outlook improves to slightly less than 25 years.

Oh, and the average home used 10,215 kw-hours of electricity in 1997 according to the Department of Energy. That is the latest stastic I can find; however, I doubt it changes much. So your 6,000 kw a year system doesn't have enough "juice" to power an average home.

[Chicago Democrat]

40. When the oil is gone and we go back to coal and after the mass

starvation it will be like a new steam era wild west with cannibals and pirates. Per this article anyway....


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/14/kunstler/index.html

[jpak]

41. OK

A 2 kW BP grid intertie PV system installed in Princeton NJ (zip 08540) will cost $7000.

http://www.bp.com/solarsavings.do?contentId=3050766&categoryId=3050485

Atlanta GA receives 2772 hours of sunshine a year - a 2 kW system would produce 5552 kWh per year.

An energy efficient home would consume 4479 kWh each year...

450 kWh for a 20 cu. ft Energy Star fridge/freezer

450 kWh for a 20 cu ft Energy Star chest freezer

300 kWh for an Energy Star electric clothes washer

300 kWh for an Energy Star electric clothes dryer

527 kWh per year for a Energy Star dishwasher

2000 kWh per year for central air conditioning

(note: this depends on a lot: size of house, degree of insulation-air infiltration, etc. The mean annual US household demand for AC is ~3000 kWh per year with a mean US AC SEER rating of <8. A 3 ton Energy Star central AC system with a SEER rating of 16-18 and Atalanta GA cooling days would probably cut that cost in half).

255 kWh per year for lighting

(assumes ten 14 watt CF bulbs operated for 5 hours each each day).

109 kWh per year for TV

(assumes a 60 watt color TV operated for 5 hours each day)

218 kWh per year for computer time

(assumes 60 watt PC and 60 watt monitor operated 5 hours each day).

Most Georgia homes have gas or propane stoves, central/room heat and hot water systems (I lived in Athens GA for ~10 years and every place I rented was gas or propane) - cooking and hot water are not included here.

The PV system would produce a surplus of 1072 kWh per year that would be sold to the grid.

Depending on Georgia Power's net metering scale, the homeowner would receive between $43 (4 cents per kWh) and $86 (8 cents per kWh) per year from GP.

This would be a ~15 year payback - and this assumes that the cost of electricity will NOT increase (LOL!!!!) over this period.

A 5-year $7000 loan would be a ~$125 monthly payment - well within the means of most US homes...after that, the system would be a money maker.

But don't expect the great state of GA to enact solar rebate legislation anytime soon - the Southern Co. has too much influence under the "Golden Dome"...

[Massacure]

43. Thank you for arguing conservation.

Now how much more do each of those cost upfront and how much do you save yearly?

[bleedingheart]

22. Yet GM thinks that the Average Joe will spend $50K on a gas guzzler

that cost him even more than the average car to run......hmmm...

I would much rather see solar panels become the new "in thing" than hummers..

[bpilgrim]

13. wait till the price of energy hits a $100 pb

thin film solar energy is cheap and here today

besides what land fill we gonna dump all these batteries in?
or convert them to bombs and drop'em on some poor unarmed third world colored country :think:

peace

[merwin]

14. Where are we gonna dump all the solar cells? They don't last

forever either :)

A battery that lasts 12 years beats one that lasts 12 hours. That's somewhere around the vicinity of 8700 times longer life. Solar cells are prone to not working when things hit them a lot, so they won't work well in places that have adverse weather or, say, hurricanes.

[bpilgrim]

15. solar FILM is not fragile like silicon WAFERS

and they do NOT have radiation in them as well =)

DayStar's thin-film cell technology offers the lowest cost cell component to the concentrating PV module. The cell is the simplest thin-film product to manufacture and offers performance and application advantages over existing rigid and flexible products. The CIGS thin-film cell technology has demonstrated reliable field performance of over 10 years to date (Siemens Solar Industries). It also is of tremendous interest to the Space community due to its lightweight and flexible nature.

source...
http://www.daystartech.com/product.htm

peace

[megatherium]

21. Solar panels are rugged. 20 year old panels are giving

essentially as much power as when brand new. The panels that BP sells are rated to take 1" hail. So solar power is starting to take off in this country, and even more so in Japan and Germany.

[Senior citizen]

10. So it lasts 12 years.

But will the user?

[Massachusetts]

16. BINGO!

[Sin]

27. :)

uraniacell it keeps you glowing and glowing. :)

[Ratty]

12. Nuclear waste power

I remember many years agos reading an article about low power nuclear generators running solely on certain types of nuclear waste. The waste emitted charged particles and was surrounded by a conductor. As the particles struck the conductor their electric fields collapsed causing eddy currents and generating power. I always liked the idea of this and thought it would be cool to have one, say, in my basement.

This arrangement sounds very similar. Except tritium is really really expensive and doesn't last long. It wouldn't be something we'd put in our basements some day.

[MadHound]

19. This isn't a good idea folks

More nuclear waste, more nuclear exporsure, sorry, but this doesn't fly. Whereas lead acids, and other rechargeable batteries can be safely be disposed of if recycled properly, nuclear waste can never be safely recycled, nor stored.

Sorry, but until the waste and human error problems associated with nuclear power can be completely and safely solved, we should leave all nuclear solutions on the drawing board.

[TheWraith]

23. There isn't any nuclear exposure.

Honestly, you say the word nuclear, and everybody starts fidgeting. The technology in question doesn't produce any significant amount of radiation, and what it does produce is shielded. The radioactive Americium in your smoke detectors produces more dangerous radiation than this would.

And to the solar people, please. I know solar panels are a great thing, but most people are never even going to touch them, and the neccessary adoption rate is prohibitively high. Not to mention that to supply all the U.S. energy needs, you would need to pave over Nevada and parts of Utah. And what do you do when it gets cloudy?

[jpak]

24. I disagree

The amount of 241-americium in the average smoke detector is <1 micro-curie.

This falls well below US Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines for nuclear waste - they can (reasonably) be disposed of in municipal garbage.

The amount of tritium in betatronic batteries is substantial (many many milli-curies depending on the size of the batteries).

Under current guidelines, you would have to obtain an NRC license to own and operate these devices - and you simply could NOT throw them in the garbage.

Furthermore, tritium readily exchanges with hydrogen in other materials (e.g., water), is biologically active, and is a major pain to clean up - even is small amounts. Break one of these things in your home and you would have a serious clean-up problem on your hands...

[AlGore-08.com]

29. Ummm... Chernobyl was "shielded" too

And it never gave a lick of trouble for the first 13 years of it's existance.

You can't just look at potential devices under ideal, NIB conditions when determining their safety. You have to look at them three or four users down the road (because dirt poor people in countries around the world will be pulling these out of garbage dumps to use them), when the "shielding" has been given decades of bashing, or when they're subjected to a +8.0 earthquake, or some kid next door has pulled one apart to see how it works and then dumps the results into the trash or down the toilet.

[TheWraith]

42. You're comparing apples and Studebakers.

Chernobyl was a nuclear reactor, light-years different from a battery. Tritium doesn't produce gamma rays--which are the form of radiation that's harmful, in quantity--only beta particles, and it's the weakest radioisotope in existence. It doesn't even need to be shielded--beta particles can't penetrate skin. And in the event that the casing were to be destroyed and the Tritium gas released, the radiation dosage to the user would still be so low as to be virtually meaningless.

I swear, use the word 'nuclear' around here and people throw common sense out the window.

[MadisonProgressive]

33. To say nothing of the ones that just throw them in the trash!

[despairing optimist]

25. I hope that the same company that bought the patent for

the phonograph needle that never wears out, the motor oil that never needs changing, the house paint that never fades or cracks, and the light bulb that never burns out buys the patent for this thing before it kills someone.

[Megahurtz]

31. Oh sure, that sounds real safe.

:nuke:

[byronius]

34. Ultimately correct solutions always seem to be the most graceful.

As if the universe holds secret all the perfect solutions until spiritual resonance has been achieved. Cold Fusion was quite graceful. Not real, but wonderful to imagine it was. I wish the people moving the research would think from the very beginning about this product's 'gracefulness', or about how it fits into the world, and into the lives of people, and from a perspective of love for both.
There has to be a better way. I'll have to think harder about it.
:smoke:

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. Is that a nuke in your pocket

or are you just happy to see me.

Apologies to Mae West.