Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Turning nuclear waste into diamond batteries

thebrighterside.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 43 posts

Re: Turning nuclear waste into diamond batteries

#11

Post by tragictrash »

cameronh90 wrote: post #8
gus_massa wrote: post #5

It was heavily discussed a few years ago, for example in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13060159 They last for a log time, but the important detail is that they have very low power, like 1mW with the size factor of a normal battery, so you need like a dozen for a (old) wrist watch and s few hundred to turn on a led. More details in: http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2020/08/diamond-batteries-unli... https://www.you…

Could be useful for things that wake up very infrequently and run for a short amount of time.

Nearly all of the devices you would want to power / we have the ability to build have a lifespan orders of magnitude shorter than the lifespan of the battery. It just doesn't make sense any way you look at it. The top comment is right. There's much better, more cost effective solutions for powering the proposed device, and better, more practical uses for the 'spent' nuclear fuel.

Re: Turning nuclear waste into diamond batteries

#12

Post by kgc »

tragictrash wrote: post #11
cameronh90 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be useful for things that wake up very infrequently and run for a short amount of time.

Nearly all of the devices you would want to power / we have the ability to build have a lifespan orders of magnitude shorter than the lifespan of the battery. It just doesn't make sense any way you look at it. The top comment is right. There's much better, more cost effective solutions for powering the proposed device, and better, more practical uses for the 'spent' nuclear fuel.

Pacemaker?

Re: Turning nuclear waste into diamond batteries

#13

Post by orlp »

kgc wrote: post #12
tragictrash wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly all of the devices you would want to power / we have the ability to build have a lifespan orders of magnitude shorter than the lifespan of the battery. It just doesn't make sense any way you look at it. The top comment is right. There's much better, more cost effective solutions for powering the proposed device, and better, more practical uses for the 'spent' nuclear fuel.

Pacemaker?

What could possibly go wrong?

Re: Turning nuclear waste into diamond batteries

#15

Post by sylware »

There is also something about "fast-neutron"/"slow-neutron" (I don't recall which one) capture based fission reactors which could give a purpose to a significant part of nuclear waste. If I understood not too badly (but I expect to be very wrong), only China and Russia have such nuclear reactors. In my country, the public research project was cancelled without being able to do the same than China and Russia. I heard that with such reactors, it extends by hundreds of years, if not thousands, the ability of fission reactors to produce "enough" energy, that based on current fuel reserve estimation.

ofc, reducing energy consumption (= reduce worldwide population, reduce heating/AC, stop commuting ...) and switching as much as possible to "stored" "renewable" energy should always be a primary focus (even if nuclear fusion becomes real).

wow, so many "if" and "I don't really know". :(

Re: Turning nuclear waste into diamond batteries

#16

Post by tragictrash »

kgc wrote: post #12
tragictrash wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly all of the devices you would want to power / we have the ability to build have a lifespan orders of magnitude shorter than the lifespan of the battery. It just doesn't make sense any way you look at it. The top comment is right. There's much better, more cost effective solutions for powering the proposed device, and better, more practical uses for the 'spent' nuclear fuel.

Pacemaker?

The pacemaker is probably only designed to last for 50 or so years. I'm not an expert, looking up the statistics, that seeems to be a very generous estimation. So you want to put a power source that can last hundreds of thousands of years in a device that's going to last 50, at great expense?

Re: Turning nuclear waste into diamond batteries

#17

Post by alex_young »

sylware wrote: post #15

There is also something about "fast-neutron"/"slow-neutron" (I don't recall which one) capture based fission reactors which could give a purpose to a significant part of nuclear waste. If I understood not too badly (but I expect to be very wrong), only China and Russia have such nuclear reactors. In my country, the public research project was cancelled without being able to do the same than China and Russia. I heard…

I believe the only way to do this is to create breeder reactors which have an obvious downside of producing nuclear weapons material as a byproduct.

Re: Turning nuclear waste into diamond batteries

#18

Post by cmroanirgo »

> the Bristol team warned that their radioactive diamond batteries wouldn’t be suitable for laptops or smartphones, because they contain only 1g of carbon-14, meaning that they provide very low power —only a few microwatts, which is less than a typical AA battery. Therefore, their application so far is limited to small devices that must stay unattended for a long time, such as sensors and pacemakers.

I assumes that more research can make or more usable in the consumer market?

Re: Turning nuclear waste into diamond batteries

#19

Post by jannemann »

> Nuclear power is considered a clean energy source because it has zero carbon dioxide emissions;

This is flat out wrong. Containing, mining, recycling and long term storage are so extremely costly and energy hungry that it does not make any economically sense in mid term to use nuclear power. And do not forget. Nuclear is not renewable. It has to be mined. There are mines which will be empty sooner than generally expected. And any kind of mass produced „nuclear battery“ which will eventually end up in land fill is a risk not worth taking. It reminds me of the story about leaded fuel. Yeah maybe a few cars are no problem. But scale up the pollution and boy will you be in trouble.

Re: Turning nuclear waste into diamond batteries

#20

Post by korijn »

jannemann wrote: post #19

> Nuclear power is considered a clean energy source because it has zero carbon dioxide emissions; This is flat out wrong. Containing, mining, recycling and long term storage are so extremely costly and energy hungry that it does not make any economically sense in mid term to use nuclear power. And do not forget. Nuclear is not renewable. It has to be mined. There are mines which will be empty sooner than generally ex…

Isn't it still miles ahead of coal in terms of "clean energy-ness", despite all the costs and flaws? Honestly curious, I'm not at all an expert.
Post reply on HN