Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Atomic MEMS Battery has 50 Year Charge 70

Posted by michael from the keeps-going-and-going dept.
notestein writes "Working for DARPA, a couple of Cornell researchers (Amil Lal, Hui Li ) have developed a battery that uses decaying nickel-63 to drive a flexing MEMS cantilever to generate electricity. They expect a production version to produce useful energy for at least 50 years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Atomic MEMS Battery has 50 Year Charge More

Atomic MEMS Battery has 50 Year Charge

Comments Filter:

  • Power supply? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Friday October 18, 2002 @06:16PM (#4482428) Journal
    The article mentions attachign a magnet to the lever to generate electricity as it moves up and down.

    If the movement is caused by electric charges, why not have the lever contact an electrode, and funnel the electric charge off through whatever it is you're powering, and then back to the isotope film? Surely that would be a more efficient way to harness the power...

    Or, for that matter, why does the arm have to move at all?
    =Smidge=

    • Re:Power supply? (Score:2, Informative)

      by The_Guv'na ( 180187 )

      The electricity generated would probably be of too high a voltage and too little current, similar to static electricity.

      Well that's what I think anyway. :P

      Ali

      • Yes, this is true. But what is the usual remedy for this? A transformer, which requires a certain quantity of ferromagnetic material such as iron. The result would be similar to the moving magnet and coil suggested in the article, but would probably be more elegant with less moving mass.
    • Why not eliminate the lever?

      Here is a discussion [unm.edu] of how PN-junctions absorb electrons directly from a beta-emitter embedded in a semi chip.

  • Uses.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Xunker ( 6905 )
    Now, I could use this to power my night-light.. but it'd probably glow all by itself.
  • Perhaps Kubrick and Clarke were not as far away when they included that atomic parker pen in 2001 :-)

  • The article says it's planned on being used in small remote devices. If they get this thing down to 1mm and mass produce it, what about using it for things like laptops, cell phones, etc?

    Sure, it would take alot of those 1mm cells, but couldn't it be done? I'd love to have a laptop that ran 50 years between replacing the battery, with no charging required.

    • A laptop for 50 years? qjkx (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Uh, I don't think you'll be keeping that laptop for 50 years. Seal that in.
      • I know I'd never keep a laptop for 50 years, but I might keep one for 5 years. I'd be happy to have a 5 year battery. Or a flashlight, or a radio, etc. 50 years is an unintentional side effect. Besides, if they use some sort of standard cells, I can just transfer them to whatever device I end up using down the line. That would make it worth the high premium for something like this.

        • Re:A laptop for 50 years? qjkx (Score:5, Informative)

          by Omega Hacker ( 6676 ) <omega@@@omegacs...net> on Friday October 18, 2002 @09:59PM (#4483263)
          One detail conveniently left out of the article is how much actual *power* is generated by this device. If a 1cc device produces only 10mA sustained, you're far better off with standard batteries for most anything except devices that actually *require* a long-running power source, and don't draw any significant amount of current. Consider this: I use 4 1700mAh AA cells in my digicam. They're, what, 3-4cc each? So at 10mA per MEMS device, you get only 160mA from that same volume.

    • Re:What about other uses? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Lord Sauron ( 551055 ) on Friday October 18, 2002 @08:37PM (#4482978)
      Other uses for a nuclear battery:

      Microwave replacement

      Heater

      Photographic film eraser

      Electromagnetical warfare

      Rodents killer

      Hair remover

      And I'm sure Al Qaeda can think of more wonderful uses.

    • This technology is applicable to things as power hungry as cell phones or laptops. This power source is has good longevity, but not power density.

      The quantity of energy you'd get would be less than the energy of a decaying isotope, which is not very much. Even with advances in technology, this can't be very much. Furthermore, even if sufficient densities were achieved by mass producing cells, I'd keep an atomic MEMS laptop away from my lap unless I felt like nuking my nuts off.

      I strongly doubt that you would be able to (safely) generate enough energy from the radioactive decay of any isotope to power anything larger than a pocket calculator. Sure, nuclear waste gives off a significant deal of heat as it decays, but then you're talking about nuclear waste.

      • Plenty of energy here. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Saturday October 19, 2002 @12:29AM (#4483679)
        The quantity of energy you'd get would be less than the energy of a decaying isotope, which is not very much. Even with advances in technology, this can't be very much.

        Actually, this turns out not to be the case.

        Consulting Ye Rubber Bible, Nickel-63 liberates about 67 KeV per decay (quite low; decays are typically in the 1 MeV range). This gives an energy density of about 35 kW/hr per _gram_ over the lifetime of the battery. _Energy_ density is far higher than anything based on chemical reactions.

        It's _power_ density that's low for most practical battery materials. With a half-life of 92 years, you get about 20 mW per gram released (actually a bit more than that at first; it _averages_ to this as it emits half its decay energy over the whole 92 years).

        The nice thing about Nickel-63 is that the decay produces beta rays (high-energy electrons) and nothing else. This could be shielded by a thick sheet of plywood, or a thin sheet of lead. Most radioisotopes aren't nearly as friendly (there is usually gamma emission as the decay product sheds excess energy, which is difficult to shield against). [ObDisclaimer: I'm assuming that the lead also blocks the x-rays produced as the high-energy electrons smack into the shielding.]

        The other nice thing is that the decay product is stable and is a solid (Copper), and so both inert and likely to stay in the battery. Carbon-14, the other "friendly" radioisotope that I can think of offhand, has a lower power density (though a higher energy density), and produces a gas as a byproduct (Nitrogen), which could eventually cause problems if allowd to build up near your MEMS devices.

        • Plenty of energy, but not power - and units (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          (Posting AC because I moderated other comments...)

          This gives an energy density of about 35 kW/hr per _gram_ over the lifetime of the battery.

          Two nits:

          1. The proper units are kw*hr, not kw/hr. Power is energy per unit time, energy is power times time. (Yes, this is slightly pedantic... until you realize how many people have NO IDEA what the units mean, and fail to understand a great many other important things as a result.)
          2. 35 KWH/gram over the life of the battery is still only 19 milliwatts per gram averaged over the first century, and that is assuming 100% conversion efficiency. The actual power density of these batteries is minuscule.

        • Re:Plenty of energy here. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Guppy ( 12314 )
          "The nice thing about Nickel-63 is that the decay produces beta rays (high-energy electrons) and nothing else. This could be shielded by a thick sheet of plywood, or a thin sheet of lead. Most radioisotopes aren't nearly as friendly (there is usually gamma emission as the decay product sheds excess energy, which is difficult to shield against). [ObDisclaimer: I'm assuming that the lead also blocks the x-rays produced as the high-energy electrons smack into the shielding.]"

          The proportion of secondary X-rays (bremsstrahlung) generated by beta particles of a give energy is proportional to the atomic number of the adsorbing material -- so your best bet would be to use both, with the plywood facing the emitter and the lead on the outside.

          My experience is in the biological sciences, which use a lot of beta emitters for radiolabeling. We used commercially made beta shielding available from scientific supply places (VWR, Fisher, etc.), and they were all made of a plastic such as acrylic. I don't think I ever saw any heavy lead shielding anywhere in our labs.
  • Just take one of these [slashdot.org], and one of these [slashdot.org] and you're set! But realy, the article said it could power small devices very long, but could it be very small and power a big device for an acceptable amount of time? Even if it had to be replaced every 10 years, I'd get one for my laptop if it was small enough, and cheap enough.
    • You could probably use a cluster of these to power a larger device for 50 years.
      Now that Ontario has privatized our electricity causing the rates to triple, I would really like to power my house.
      I wonder how big a cluster would be needed?

      • Re:Alright! (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Imagine a b..... uh, never mind.
    • It provides power via radioactive decay. It lasts 50 years wether you use it or not. You can't exchange shorter life for logner lasting in this sort of thing.

  • It'll never happen... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Friday October 18, 2002 @06:53PM (#4482558) Homepage Journal
    Just wait until the no-nuke freaks, flat-earthers, Nader kooks and other Luddites get a whiff of how this technology works. They'll try to scare the public into keeping this from becoming a reality.

    Of course we could really fry their minds by reminding them that the reason the earth is still hot inside is mostly because of radioactivity.

    Still, I think ignorance could be a factor in the public perception of this product. Of course, I'll be first in line to buy one.

    • Re:It'll never happen... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BitGeek ( 19506 ) on Friday October 18, 2002 @07:24PM (#4482715) Homepage

      That's a good point. They'd better not call it "Atomic" They should call it "nano"-- we haven't yet breed a fervent religious movement that hates nanotechnology for defying god, etc. Those types are still stuck on outlawing human cloning ( which is a right, by the way, you the right to reproduce-- who has the right to tell you *how* to reprorduce? Nobody)--- now that they have finally gotten over test tube babies.

    • Just wait until the no-nuke freaks, flat-earthers, Nader kooks and other Luddites get a whiff of how this technology works.

      Um, as someone who thinks uranium or plutonium fission power is a highly sub-solution to our power needs, and who voted for Nader twice (though I'm not a flat-earther or a Luddite), I think this is fascinating and way-cool tech. Put the ad hominem down, ok?

      • Well, then obviously you are not a no-nuke freak nor a Nader kook.

        I didn't say opposing nukes makes you a freak, nor does supporting Nader make you a kook. I said that those freaks and kooks that do fit the description will jump on this as the new doom of the world.

  • It won't make any difference (Score:3, Insightful)

    by darkov ( 261309 ) on Friday October 18, 2002 @06:54PM (#4482560)
    The latest pentium laptop will still only get 2 hours use out of it.

  • the battery is still alive (Score:3, Funny)

    by u19925 ( 613350 ) on Friday October 18, 2002 @07:25PM (#4482717)
    Now you will die before your battery does!

  • Theoretical Limit (Score:4, Informative)

    by Will_Malverson ( 105796 ) on Friday October 18, 2002 @10:40PM (#4483414) Journal
    A 1-kilogram chunk of Nickel 63 will give off about 25 Watts of pure beta radiation -- assuming that you configure it in such a way that the beta particles aren't reabsorbed by neigboring nickel atoms. Even assuming 100% efficiency, a battery capable of powering your laptop would weigh at least a few kilograms.
  • This power source would knock all of our current (no pun intended) Uninterruptible Power Supplies on their collective asses. If the power goes out, no worries, my server can stay on for 50 years... Also, in all seriousness, this seems like it would be the ideal power source for robots such as the "servant" variety that have been a staple of future homes in many science fiction stories. After all, it seems like a waste of time to have Robo-Jeeves plug himself in every night. The only obstacle that is obvious to me is the question of production efficiency; basically, how cheap is it to find/produce/refine large quantities of this Nickel isotope? If it takes a tremendous amount of power and time, that translates into tremendous expense, and decreases the likelyhood that we will ever see them in commercial products.
    • It wouldn't recharge, though... It would work for 50 years from the day it was manufactured. If you buy your UPS at your friendly neighbourhood Radio Shack, that could be as much as 15 years ago.

      It is, however, the closest thing we have to a "pocket" fission reactor, and still veddy cool, IMO. But Nickel 63 [nordion.com] (Marketing Fluff, sorry, was only doc I could find that mentionned production early) isn't cheap or easy to produce, so I doubt it'll be seeing commercial applications in the immediate future. It takes at least 3 years of irradiation to manufacture a usable quantity of it.
    • I suspect that this power source wasn't designed for laptops or calculators or ballpoint pens... Seems to me that the dangers associated with disposal of a radioactive power supply dictates that this product will not see the consumer market.

      However, the longevity of the power source and its insensitivity to temperature suggest that it would be well suited for powering isolated scientific equipment. Missle silo monitoring and medical uses were mentioned in the article, but I'm sure that arctic weather stations or micro-satellites would be well suited uses for a small, long-term power supply.

  • hooray for technology (Score:3, Funny)

    by friedman101 ( 618627 ) on Saturday October 19, 2002 @01:50AM (#4483850)
    I have this 10 year old calculator which the battery is yet to die in. It's powered by that never ending, limitless supply of radiant energy that we seem to ignore quite frequently.
  • Hmmm.. what could we use this for?

    Reason. They'll use this for reason.

    Obscure refrence: see "snow crash"
  • So how do you change the battery, when it's so small you can't see it?

  • Where does Nickel-63 come from? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can this stuff even be produced in large quantities?
  • How much would it cost to generate enough for building a recharger for laptop batteries?

    If a lot of strong beta emitters were ground up and made into dust, would they be dangerous?

    (Doesn't Voyager and all other longterm probes to the outer solar system use beta emitter batteries?)

    • Re:How much/ton of the isotope? Is it safe as dust (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      (Doesn't Voyager and all other longterm probes to the outer solar system use beta emitter batteries?)

      No. [si.edu]

      Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG's)
      Three RTG's provide electric power to Voyager. The generators produce about 1800 watts of heat by the radioactive decay of plutonium. The heat is then converted to about 400 watts of electric power by thermocouplers. The RTG's are mounted on a boom to protect the scientific instruments from excess heat and radioactivity.
  • This may have been mention earlier, but I didn't see actual numbers. My question would be, how big does this have to be to be useful. I'm assuming that a larger cantilever with a material emitting more radioisotopes (try saying that five times fast) will produce more power.

    I suppose it would also be assumed that many such configurations could be joined to produce a cumulative charge? But how big would it need to be, for example, to produce a charge equivilent to a small li-ion battery, or maybe even a standard house socket?

    I've seen some fairly large UPS boxes (not the postal service, the power supply). A continuous long-lasting power supply of that size would probably embraced with open arms. Enough power to fuel a small electronics array would also do wonders for areas without power lines.

  • Waste disposal (Score:2, Informative)

    by curious.corn ( 167387 )
    I see too many issues for commercial mass production:

    1. Product timelife too long: consumer market requires frequent product renewal. Excessively long lasting products saturate and stifle market growth.

    2. Waste disposal: one of the most expensive and not yet completely accounted for voice in economic balances. The security requirements on such waste would impose prohibitive costs on it (I guess).

    3. Accidental environmental release:no one wants to get this stuff implanted in their lungs! So how can accidental/intentional product destruction be dealt with? Say a 1 Kg battery is destroyed in a fire, can we secure the radioactive plume? (guess what... no!) Depleted U was said to be safe yet there are cases of blood tumor amongst mil operators and civilians exposed to the waste developed malformations (Iraq).

    I don't think/hope this material will ever get mainstream. In certain scientific apps like sat it can be a good solution (or even an alternative: solar panels degrade quickly because of micrometeor collisions and ion implantation) or efficient deep space probes.

  • A love affair with nuclear power... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...is apparently what Americans had in the 1950s and 60s. Many projects sought to use atomic energy directly to power everyday items. A nuclear powered airplane was partially constructed but far too heavy to leave the ground. Also prototyped were a nuclear powered Bulova wristwatch, thermal underwear for diving impregnated with plutonium, and -- I am not making this up -- a nuclear powered coffee maker that would percolate for a century under its own power. Read article for all the details [monitor.net].
  • "Radioactive materials can emit beta particles, alpha particles or gamma rays, the last two of which can carry enough energy to be hazardous."

    Last time I checked, alpha particles couldn't even penetrate skin, and beta particles could, making them more dangerous. Isn't the penetration level series actually alpha then beta then gamma?

    On a related note, this just occured to me: when a beta-emitter emits an electron, thus leaving the atom positively charged, how does it ever gain an electron again. That is, if I have a block of, say Thorium 234 (a beta-emitter) sitting on a table, will it just become more and more positive, until you have a very positive chunk of Palladium?

    • Alpha particles can be considered molecules and can be dangerous as a toxic substance when inhaled or swallowed.

      On a sidenote: I have trouble thinking of Palladium [slashdot.org] as positive ;-)

  • The article says they could use the motion of the arm, which is produced in the first place by a difference in charge, to produce electricity. Don't you already have electricity by the differing charges! Why have any moving parts!
  • the Nuclear Resonant Battery [rexresearch.com]

    The idea was to create a high-Q resonant circuit, then drive the oscilation with a beta emitting isotope, and pull power out of the system via inductive coupling.

    The inventor claimed to be able to pull about 100 watts out of a soup-can sized power system.

    Was this later proven to be BS, or did it just die because it had the "n" word in it's name?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde

Close