http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/pu ... 04nuc.html
The above is a link to an IEEE spectrum nuclear battery article that is quite interesting.
Richard Hull
Nuclear Batteries
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15024
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Nuclear Batteries
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Tritium has a half life of 12.3 years, that is quite a long time! If they could make a 50 % efficient converter, and use a significant (but still safe) amount of T, it could power a highly power efficient PDA or cellphone as long as T lasts.
Using a material that has a half life of say, a 100 years, and emits enough betas to generate power, we could forget conventional batteries...i think they COULD indeed replace chemicals....if they make a large nuke battery as long and as wide as a PDA, and about half as thick (multi layer maybe), and increase conversion efficiency, plus use a material that is a relatively intense beta emitter (but still has a half life of say around 10 years), i think it should be sufficient to power the PDA.
Yes, no?
One thing is for sure they could power a handwatch (with a battery the size of the backplate of the handwatch) , especially one that has an LCD display...minimal power consumption. Or a simple calculator.
Cold fusion (or whatever they call it now) still sounds interesting, and a very important field to study. I think there must be a way to enhance the effect...instead of small micro blasts on the electrode surface, a more homogeneous reaction...though a single massive blast would not be of any use
. So the secret seems to be, loading palladium to the tilt with deuterium...Let's but a palladium target into our little fusors and smash deuterium into it...well i guess that is a bit too agressive method?
Adam
Using a material that has a half life of say, a 100 years, and emits enough betas to generate power, we could forget conventional batteries...i think they COULD indeed replace chemicals....if they make a large nuke battery as long and as wide as a PDA, and about half as thick (multi layer maybe), and increase conversion efficiency, plus use a material that is a relatively intense beta emitter (but still has a half life of say around 10 years), i think it should be sufficient to power the PDA.
Yes, no?
One thing is for sure they could power a handwatch (with a battery the size of the backplate of the handwatch) , especially one that has an LCD display...minimal power consumption. Or a simple calculator.
Cold fusion (or whatever they call it now) still sounds interesting, and a very important field to study. I think there must be a way to enhance the effect...instead of small micro blasts on the electrode surface, a more homogeneous reaction...though a single massive blast would not be of any use
. So the secret seems to be, loading palladium to the tilt with deuterium...Let's but a palladium target into our little fusors and smash deuterium into it...well i guess that is a bit too agressive method?Adam
Re: Nuclear Batteries
the biggest problem with nuclear batteries is that there will be more than just beta particles being produced. of course one could refine the material to a mostly pure state and get mostly beta or alpha particles, but it would be an extensive process.
but, yes, i too would like to see nuclear batteries happen in the near future.
Q
but, yes, i too would like to see nuclear batteries happen in the near future.
Q
-
davidtrimmell
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 5:37 pm
- Real name:
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Very interesting stuff. There are several pure beta emiters to chose from, H-3, P-32, and Sr-90 (only very week gamma from the Y-90) and relatively availiable from spent fuel. Of course, these will not be powering your electric auto anytime soon
Regards,
David Trimmell
Regards,
David Trimmell
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: Nuclear Batteries
As i always say: Who knows?
You know it is funny that some people call the second half of the 20th century (and current times), the "atomic era"...I think it will only begin later, if it will ever. Just like "space era"...
Anyway, for now these nuke batteries could power several kinds of low power consumption stuff. Mostly digital.
Also ,a 100 mW, if pulsed at a repetition rate higher than about 100 Hz, should be able to power a LED seemingly constantly.
A battery using a rather intense beta emitter, and having, for eg. 5 cm^2 of surface area, should be able to power a relatively strong LED then. Voila! "Forever" light...well...given that the radioisotope has a half life of at least 10 years...
Adam
You know it is funny that some people call the second half of the 20th century (and current times), the "atomic era"...I think it will only begin later, if it will ever. Just like "space era"...
Anyway, for now these nuke batteries could power several kinds of low power consumption stuff. Mostly digital.
Also ,a 100 mW, if pulsed at a repetition rate higher than about 100 Hz, should be able to power a LED seemingly constantly.
A battery using a rather intense beta emitter, and having, for eg. 5 cm^2 of surface area, should be able to power a relatively strong LED then. Voila! "Forever" light...well...given that the radioisotope has a half life of at least 10 years...
Adam
Re: Nuclear Batteries
yes, thank you, i had forgotten about these beta emitters. sometimes i respond before i think. : )
another possibility would be to use a magnetic field from say a pair of Nd magnets to seperate the differently charged particles. sort of a MHD type arrangement.
Q
another possibility would be to use a magnetic field from say a pair of Nd magnets to seperate the differently charged particles. sort of a MHD type arrangement.
Q
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15024
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Nuclear Batteries
My favorite is Fe63. It has a half life of ~100 years and its beta only radiation makes it pretty benign. the betas will not penetrate a polyethylene baggy that it is placed in.
One thing to consider is the amount needed in a personal device. A watch might demand 20-50 microwatts of power. At 3 volts, that would be 6 to 15 uamps of current. Using raw electrons as the base, that is a mean of 6.2x10e13 electrons needed every second. Assuming no better than 50% efficiency, this means an electron source of about 1.2x10e14 electrons/second or a 1.2x10e14/2.22x10e12 or about 54 Curies!!! In a Watch!!!!! Of course, the average exit sign has up to 25 Curies of Tritium in it. But 54 Curies in a watch!!??
To replace a 9 volt transitor radio battery you are looking at 10ma delivery rates and that would demand about 54,000 Curies of something!!
I realize that those electrons have kinetic energy and that is not the same as an electron drifting through a circuit, but what process will utilize and convert this kinetic energy to over electrical energy in the required micro space demanded?
With efficient ionic conversion of the kinetic energy, the Curie load could be reduced by a factor of over 100, making the watch only need 0.54 Curies. That's still nasty
It all sounds great until you run the landfill math. The real beneifts will be in powering MEMS devices. There will be some whacko who tries to kill his rich old aunt by feeding her 100 curies of something he scavanged a few old Fe63 watch batteries in 2080.
Richard Hull
One thing to consider is the amount needed in a personal device. A watch might demand 20-50 microwatts of power. At 3 volts, that would be 6 to 15 uamps of current. Using raw electrons as the base, that is a mean of 6.2x10e13 electrons needed every second. Assuming no better than 50% efficiency, this means an electron source of about 1.2x10e14 electrons/second or a 1.2x10e14/2.22x10e12 or about 54 Curies!!! In a Watch!!!!! Of course, the average exit sign has up to 25 Curies of Tritium in it. But 54 Curies in a watch!!??
To replace a 9 volt transitor radio battery you are looking at 10ma delivery rates and that would demand about 54,000 Curies of something!!
I realize that those electrons have kinetic energy and that is not the same as an electron drifting through a circuit, but what process will utilize and convert this kinetic energy to over electrical energy in the required micro space demanded?
With efficient ionic conversion of the kinetic energy, the Curie load could be reduced by a factor of over 100, making the watch only need 0.54 Curies. That's still nasty
It all sounds great until you run the landfill math. The real beneifts will be in powering MEMS devices. There will be some whacko who tries to kill his rich old aunt by feeding her 100 curies of something he scavanged a few old Fe63 watch batteries in 2080.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
davidtrimmell
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 5:37 pm
- Real name:
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Hi Richard, I see your point, and agree that these types of "battery's" will never power anything overly "large" or power hungry. But I think you over simplified, as it will be the LET of the beta through the semiconductor that will produce the charge. A 100KeV beta could, in theory, produce many thousands of electrons. The trick is getting a decent efficiency of converting the kinetic energy of the beta's to electrical current. Personally I don't think 20% will be anytime soon, but I hope to be proven wrong!
Regards,
David Trimmell
Regards,
David Trimmell
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15024
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Nuclear Batteries
I don't think you'll ever see 100kev beta isotopes in a consumer battery. (shielding issues for secondary induced x-rays)
Again, it is only the under 8kev beta "AVERAGE" Which is usually 1/3 PEAK that can be counted on. This means T, Ni63, and the like in consumer goods. For this, in the end of my post, I allowed for about 100 usable electrons per 8kev isotope electron. backing the watch example off to only 0.54 Ci.
Richard Hull
Again, it is only the under 8kev beta "AVERAGE" Which is usually 1/3 PEAK that can be counted on. This means T, Ni63, and the like in consumer goods. For this, in the end of my post, I allowed for about 100 usable electrons per 8kev isotope electron. backing the watch example off to only 0.54 Ci.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Well, it's a beta only emitter, so no rad dangers, and would be sealed off good...so i guess it would be be viable to be used in a watch. Powering it for a hundred years...this reminds me of some sci-fi movies where they power up ancient stuff (thousands of years old)...though a 100 years is not THAT long...
Self powered accelerometers and gyros (analog devices makes a lot of such (though not self powered) stuff, i have a couple of samples), would be great indeed! The sensors would be independent from the power grid of the vechicle or whatever.
But ofcourse to see the measurement data, one needs power.
But maybe it could be logged (even if displaying it would consume too much power), with self powered memory modules , microprocessors...
"Our one-cantilever system generated pulses with a peak power of 100 milliwatts"
That is rather nice, though i could not find the repetition rate in the article.
They used 1 millicurie of nickel-63 in their experiments. It radiates 17 keV betas (average, peak is 67 keV), and has a half life of 96 years (i found 101 years on the nuclides chart page).
Adam
Ps.: Richard, are you sure it's Fe-63? According to this:
http://wwwndc.tokai.jaeri.go.jp/cgi-bin ... 2003?26,63
It only has a half life of 6.1 seconds! And it emits gammas too.
Self powered accelerometers and gyros (analog devices makes a lot of such (though not self powered) stuff, i have a couple of samples), would be great indeed! The sensors would be independent from the power grid of the vechicle or whatever.
But ofcourse to see the measurement data, one needs power
.But maybe it could be logged (even if displaying it would consume too much power), with self powered memory modules , microprocessors...
"Our one-cantilever system generated pulses with a peak power of 100 milliwatts"
That is rather nice, though i could not find the repetition rate in the article.
They used 1 millicurie of nickel-63 in their experiments. It radiates 17 keV betas (average, peak is 67 keV), and has a half life of 96 years (i found 101 years on the nuclides chart page).
Adam
Ps.: Richard, are you sure it's Fe-63? According to this:
http://wwwndc.tokai.jaeri.go.jp/cgi-bin ... 2003?26,63
It only has a half life of 6.1 seconds! And it emits gammas too.
-
Jon Rosenstiel
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 1:30 am
- Real name: Jon Rosenstiel
- Location: Southern California
Re: Nuclear Batteries
I believe Richard meant to say Ni-63.
Jon Rosenstiel
Jon Rosenstiel
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Hi all!
I looked through the nuclide chart, and found some good looking isotopes. But i have no idea on their cost, manufacturable quantity, etc.... This is just a list for someone to look at and see if there are any among these isotopes, that could be useful in a nuclear battery application. Just curious. I did not include Ni-63 , because it has already been discussed.
Note: all these nuclides emit quite energetic betas, those are rather for applications where there is room for a shield (larger batteries).
There are all beta ONLY emitters.
Name______Half life(years)___Specific Activity__Beta emission
Gd-148_______75______________32 Ci/g_______5735 keV
Hg-194_______ 520____________ 3.5 Ci/g_______5400 keV
Si-32_________172____________110 Ci/g_______224.3 keV
Ar-39_________269____________34 Ci/g________565 keV
Si-32 looks great (long half life, high activity), but i don't know anything about it's price/Ci. Ar-39 has a very long half life and a fair activity.
Hg-194 has a very long half-life, thus it's specific activity is low, but still rather good. But the 5.4 MeV betas sound maybe a "little bit" too energetic..but in a bigger battery (that can produce a mW maybe) it could be shielded...
Thanks for any comments!
Adam
Ps.: I just googled around, Si-32 is the decay product of Ar...that is not really good news. Ar-39 could be produced via neutron radiation (according to what i read, from K-39).
I looked through the nuclide chart, and found some good looking isotopes. But i have no idea on their cost, manufacturable quantity, etc.... This is just a list for someone to look at and see if there are any among these isotopes, that could be useful in a nuclear battery application. Just curious
. I did not include Ni-63 , because it has already been discussed.Note: all these nuclides emit quite energetic betas, those are rather for applications where there is room for a shield (larger batteries).
There are all beta ONLY emitters.
Name______Half life(years)___Specific Activity__Beta emission
Gd-148_______75______________32 Ci/g_______5735 keV
Hg-194_______ 520____________ 3.5 Ci/g_______5400 keV
Si-32_________172____________110 Ci/g_______224.3 keV
Ar-39_________269____________34 Ci/g________565 keV
Si-32 looks great (long half life, high activity), but i don't know anything about it's price/Ci. Ar-39 has a very long half life and a fair activity.
Hg-194 has a very long half-life, thus it's specific activity is low, but still rather good. But the 5.4 MeV betas sound maybe a "little bit" too energetic..but in a bigger battery (that can produce a mW maybe) it could be shielded...
Thanks for any comments!
Adam
Ps.: I just googled around, Si-32 is the decay product of Ar...that is not really good news. Ar-39 could be produced via neutron radiation (according to what i read, from K-39).
Re: Nuclear Batteries
So, use something lik lead titanate to make your P-N Junctions and
take advantage of the hotter isotopes. In a really big battery, there's
no reason you couldn't take advantage of some of the x-ray and
gamma radiation after a bit of research.
take advantage of the hotter isotopes. In a really big battery, there's
no reason you couldn't take advantage of some of the x-ray and
gamma radiation after a bit of research.
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: Nuclear Batteries
I had also been thinking about that...
As Q has pointed out, the radiation from an alpha beta emitter can be separated, as the light electrons can be deflected (the alphas would be lightyears harder to deflect, but they don't need to be, as they can just continue their path more or less straight and hit an electrode placed in their way, and electrons can be separated via a strong magnetic field).
X-rays can be converted to heat i guess, neutrons too.
Pu-238 batteries have been in use since 1961, for deep space missions (solar panels are almost useless far from the sun). See this link:
http://www.ne.doe.gov/space/space-history.html
and
http://www.atomicinsights.com/sep96/Apollo.html
These are POWERFUL cells.
The so called SNAP-27 (see the link above for more detail), has a capacity of 4380 Ah/kg (!) while a conventional chemical battery tops at 1.5 Ah/kg...it provided 75 W electrical (@ 30 V DC) and about 1200 W heat.
A similar system showed 24,000 Ah/kg during a 20 years mission, and it still provides power!!!
These devices mostly used Pu-238, which has a half life of about 87 years and is an alpha emitter (they did not want gamma radiation zipping around inside a space probe, plus astronauts handle these gadgets, and using thick lead shields is probably a big no-no in spacecraft ).
You can handle it with only some heat protective gloves (high surface temperature (500 degrees Celsius) due to its decay).
So i have to say, nuclear batteries can have a major role in powering more power hungry devices, such as an electrical car...the only setback i can imagine is cost...and of course some dark greeine fools protesting againts "nuclear power".....
Btw these so called RTGs use direct conversion into electricity (thermoelectric) and are probably not very efficient..and still they can provide loads of power!
Adam
As Q has pointed out, the radiation from an alpha beta emitter can be separated, as the light electrons can be deflected (the alphas would be lightyears harder to deflect, but they don't need to be, as they can just continue their path more or less straight and hit an electrode placed in their way, and electrons can be separated via a strong magnetic field).
X-rays can be converted to heat i guess, neutrons too.
Pu-238 batteries have been in use since 1961, for deep space missions (solar panels are almost useless far from the sun). See this link:
http://www.ne.doe.gov/space/space-history.html
and
http://www.atomicinsights.com/sep96/Apollo.html
These are POWERFUL cells.
The so called SNAP-27 (see the link above for more detail), has a capacity of 4380 Ah/kg (!) while a conventional chemical battery tops at 1.5 Ah/kg...it provided 75 W electrical (@ 30 V DC) and about 1200 W heat.
A similar system showed 24,000 Ah/kg during a 20 years mission, and it still provides power!!!
These devices mostly used Pu-238, which has a half life of about 87 years and is an alpha emitter (they did not want gamma radiation zipping around inside a space probe, plus astronauts handle these gadgets, and using thick lead shields is probably a big no-no in spacecraft ).
You can handle it with only some heat protective gloves (high surface temperature (500 degrees Celsius) due to its decay).
So i have to say, nuclear batteries can have a major role in powering more power hungry devices, such as an electrical car...the only setback i can imagine is cost...and of course some dark greeine fools protesting againts "nuclear power".....
Btw these so called RTGs use direct conversion into electricity (thermoelectric) and are probably not very efficient..and still they can provide loads of power!
Adam
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Quite honestly, I don't see any reason not to shoot for the entire ball
of wax. Alpha and beta are both moving charged particles and there
should be a way to arrange P-N junctions to convert that energy
directly into electrical current. X-ray and gamma are both strongly
ionizing so we should take a shot at converting that to electricity as
well. Lead stops X-ray and gamma cold so if we can come up with a
lead or bismuth compound that will form P-N junctions, we should be
able to make yet another direct conversion to electrical current.
Finally, the Seebeck effect can be use to catch 10-15% of the waste
heat as electricity.
The thing is, no one has tried to do it yet. Everybody is still eaten up
with the "cain'ts".
of wax. Alpha and beta are both moving charged particles and there
should be a way to arrange P-N junctions to convert that energy
directly into electrical current. X-ray and gamma are both strongly
ionizing so we should take a shot at converting that to electricity as
well. Lead stops X-ray and gamma cold so if we can come up with a
lead or bismuth compound that will form P-N junctions, we should be
able to make yet another direct conversion to electrical current.
Finally, the Seebeck effect can be use to catch 10-15% of the waste
heat as electricity.
The thing is, no one has tried to do it yet. Everybody is still eaten up
with the "cain'ts".
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: Nuclear Batteries
I whole heartedly agree with you, believe me! I'm sure it can be done, and i would happily experiment around with radioisotopes...but...even if i would have the needed safety gear to handle strong gamma emitters, obtaining these isotopes is probably close to impossible, due to regulations...i have no idea what kind of licences one would need to obtain for instance, Pu-238.
The other problem is cost...though i have no information on isotope prices...if someone could help me out here i would be grateful (can anyone tell me prices of some "popular" heavy isotopes?).
Adam
The other problem is cost...though i have no information on isotope prices...if someone could help me out here i would be grateful (can anyone tell me prices of some "popular" heavy isotopes?).
Adam
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Adam,
Don't even inquire about Pu-238 unless you want the federalis
tapping your phone and hanging around your house. I wasn't aiming a
criticism at you are anyone else participating on these boards.
The problem I have are with the science community at large. Back
when we first started fiddling around with this stuff it was little different
from when the Wright brothers first flew. There was no point in even
thinking about trying to break the sound barrier in those days. It was
enough just to get the stinking thing to fly and be semi-controllable.
There have been, however, some major improvements in the realm of
material's sciences since those days. Nowadays I notice they call
this field "condensed matter physics," as if we really needed yet
another name for something we've been doing for centuries. Anyway,
we have materials and fabrication techniques today that should allow
us a shot at doing more than we are.
I don't suppose I'd really mind all that much, but some of the stuff I
read is so silly, or so negative, or heaviy characterized by both that it
gives me pause.
I like this battery idea, it's just that I think it hasn't been carried
forward enough. Why limit the scope to watch batteries and power
supplies for microscopic machines? I'm dubious about mechanical
devices on that scale anyway. You want to know what the ultimate
nano-machine is? DNA and RNA. I think the greater benefit to be
realized from "genetic engineering" or what ever it is being called
nowadays, will be in the realm of materials sciences.
But, I digress. Nuclear batteries have been around a long time. So far,
we only use a fraction of the power they produce. It's time to start
improving that harvest. It's almost as bad flaring off natural gas for the
want of pipelines.
Don't even inquire about Pu-238 unless you want the federalis
tapping your phone and hanging around your house. I wasn't aiming a
criticism at you are anyone else participating on these boards.
The problem I have are with the science community at large. Back
when we first started fiddling around with this stuff it was little different
from when the Wright brothers first flew. There was no point in even
thinking about trying to break the sound barrier in those days. It was
enough just to get the stinking thing to fly and be semi-controllable.
There have been, however, some major improvements in the realm of
material's sciences since those days. Nowadays I notice they call
this field "condensed matter physics," as if we really needed yet
another name for something we've been doing for centuries. Anyway,
we have materials and fabrication techniques today that should allow
us a shot at doing more than we are.
I don't suppose I'd really mind all that much, but some of the stuff I
read is so silly, or so negative, or heaviy characterized by both that it
gives me pause.
I like this battery idea, it's just that I think it hasn't been carried
forward enough. Why limit the scope to watch batteries and power
supplies for microscopic machines? I'm dubious about mechanical
devices on that scale anyway. You want to know what the ultimate
nano-machine is? DNA and RNA. I think the greater benefit to be
realized from "genetic engineering" or what ever it is being called
nowadays, will be in the realm of materials sciences.
But, I digress. Nuclear batteries have been around a long time. So far,
we only use a fraction of the power they produce. It's time to start
improving that harvest. It's almost as bad flaring off natural gas for the
want of pipelines.
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Hi Dabbler,
I did a little more googling on this matter...
Found this:
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/SPRING00/lecture7.pdf
I didn't read it yet, but it contains info in the price of Pu-238...well as i have suspected, it's outrageously expesive!!!
$1000/g....shees!! Now my problem is...in this lecture:
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/SPRING00/lecture24.pdf
Pu-238 costs $100/g...so which one is correct?
SO i searched on and an independent source confirmed that the price is $1k/g...way too much for an amateur...not that it can be obtained by one!
Nevertheless, with a nominal efficiency of around 20 % of a dynamic RTG (according to the graph), a nuclear fission reactor looks (and it is) much more economical above 50 kW power levels...simple, the fuel costs less...
I searched on on the price of Pu-238..and i found more horrific info...
"When DOE first started purchasing Pu-238 from Russia, it cost $1,200-1,300 per/gram - this cost will increase to approximately $1,700 per/gram. The cost of producing domestic Pu-238 will be approximately $3,400 per/gram."
Argh...
This is a quote from this page:
http://www.ida.net/users/cab/Nov98MINUTES.HTM
Scroll down to read the presentation of Ray Furstenau.
Well, seeing the price of Pu-238 i have decided to look up the price of U-238 (since it can be used in a hybrid reactor system, or as standalone nuclear fuel), just for fun.
Well...uranium ore, which is mostly U-238 costs around $20/kg. What i don't know, is the price of processed U-238 (for eg. in rods or something). I assume it is significantly higher.
But even if it is in the $1000/kg range (which i strongly doubt) , it costs many orders of magnitude less than Pu-238...on the other hand a fission reactor is much more complex than a simple RTG.
Meanwhile i found out that the processing of uranium ore costs around $8/lb these days...so that should put us around (with all other costs) $40/kg for U-238.
Actually $8/lb is the price of U-235 purification i think, but that means , the byproduct is almost pure U-238.
You wouldn't believe how complicated it was to find this "pricing info" (with google)! No suprise! I hope it's correct...It was much easier to fin the unit price of Pu-238...
Adam
Ps.: The bad news is that eventually we will also run out of uranium...but if we could use the heat from decaying waste, maybe we could stretch our time a littel....and we just may have enough time to come up with an alternative energy source...
I did a little more googling on this matter...
Found this:
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/SPRING00/lecture7.pdf
I didn't read it yet, but it contains info in the price of Pu-238...well as i have suspected, it's outrageously expesive!!!
$1000/g....shees!! Now my problem is...in this lecture:
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/SPRING00/lecture24.pdf
Pu-238 costs $100/g...so which one is correct?
SO i searched on and an independent source confirmed that the price is $1k/g...way too much for an amateur
...not that it can be obtained by one!Nevertheless, with a nominal efficiency of around 20 % of a dynamic RTG (according to the graph), a nuclear fission reactor looks (and it is) much more economical above 50 kW power levels...simple, the fuel costs less...
I searched on on the price of Pu-238..and i found more horrific info...
"When DOE first started purchasing Pu-238 from Russia, it cost $1,200-1,300 per/gram - this cost will increase to approximately $1,700 per/gram. The cost of producing domestic Pu-238 will be approximately $3,400 per/gram."
Argh...
This is a quote from this page:
http://www.ida.net/users/cab/Nov98MINUTES.HTM
Scroll down to read the presentation of Ray Furstenau.
Well, seeing the price of Pu-238 i have decided to look up the price of U-238 (since it can be used in a hybrid reactor system, or as standalone nuclear fuel), just for fun.
Well...uranium ore, which is mostly U-238 costs around $20/kg. What i don't know, is the price of processed U-238 (for eg. in rods or something). I assume it is significantly higher.
But even if it is in the $1000/kg range (which i strongly doubt) , it costs many orders of magnitude less than Pu-238...on the other hand a fission reactor is much more complex than a simple RTG.
Meanwhile i found out that the processing of uranium ore costs around $8/lb these days...so that should put us around (with all other costs) $40/kg for U-238.
Actually $8/lb is the price of U-235 purification i think, but that means , the byproduct is almost pure U-238.
You wouldn't believe how complicated it was to find this "pricing info" (with google)! No suprise! I hope it's correct...It was much easier to fin the unit price of Pu-238...
Adam
Ps.: The bad news is that eventually we will also run out of uranium...but if we could use the heat from decaying waste, maybe we could stretch our time a littel....and we just may have enough time to come up with an alternative energy source...
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15024
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Nuclear Batteries
I did mean to say Ni 63 Sorry 'bout that. It is Fe that is used as a standard XRF source.
Richard Hull
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15024
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Currently, you nor I, nor any living soul can purchase any radio-nuclides at any price, any where outside of little 1-10uCi calibration disks. Actually, we never could, even back in the day.
Major manufacturers can purchase such isotopes provided they have an NRC license for the specific isotope, full security measures in place and sign an agreement that they will be held responsible technically and legally for reclaimation of every single microcurie used via offering to dispose of the material used in their devices. To get the license you have to jump through about ten thousand hoops, especially if you are going to pass the stuff on to the public.
For larger sources (millicurie) sold in the US by manufacturers in such devices as portable XRF "ray guns", etc, the company that purchases such sub-licensed sources must have a trained radiological specialist on site to shepherd the device and source. The user is then the responsible party.
No one here will ever move one micron left or right, backwards or forwards in the issue of nuke battery experiments. You just don't have the "right stuff" and can't get it either.
Still, I guess it was nice musing over the ideas.
Richard Hull
Major manufacturers can purchase such isotopes provided they have an NRC license for the specific isotope, full security measures in place and sign an agreement that they will be held responsible technically and legally for reclaimation of every single microcurie used via offering to dispose of the material used in their devices. To get the license you have to jump through about ten thousand hoops, especially if you are going to pass the stuff on to the public.
For larger sources (millicurie) sold in the US by manufacturers in such devices as portable XRF "ray guns", etc, the company that purchases such sub-licensed sources must have a trained radiological specialist on site to shepherd the device and source. The user is then the responsible party.
No one here will ever move one micron left or right, backwards or forwards in the issue of nuke battery experiments. You just don't have the "right stuff" and can't get it either.
Still, I guess it was nice musing over the ideas.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Fidlesticks....oh well..Hopefully this will cahnge once we are running low on energy...
Btw, a slight panic is starting to spread in the oil industry...we are slowly bus surely getting there...The opec announced to increase production...which is already at full tilt.
Oh and another thing...i'm sure that someone with enough money and connections can get plenty of rad stuff "second(third) hand".
For this my phone will be tapped for the rest of my life LOL.
Adam
Btw, a slight panic is starting to spread in the oil industry...we are slowly bus surely getting there...The opec announced to increase production...which is already at full tilt.
Oh and another thing...i'm sure that someone with enough money and connections can get plenty of rad stuff "second(third) hand".
For this my phone will be tapped for the rest of my life LOL
.Adam
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Hi Adam:
The insurance to go with the liciencing fees is a cool million.
You could set up for around 10 million BUT you need to be player in the military complex to even do fire alarms.
BTW the source comes as a set to install in your alarm straight from the DOE facility.
It was so onerous that the company I worked for stopped all activities with the isotopic generators.
At this time only Lockheed Martin and Boeing deal in aerospace rtg's.
RTG's used to be owned by persons and companies but that has been stopped cold. General Dynamics used to sell a Sr90 RTG for 60,000 dollars in the 60's for comercial use. Only Space and military get them now.
Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
The insurance to go with the liciencing fees is a cool million.
You could set up for around 10 million BUT you need to be player in the military complex to even do fire alarms.
BTW the source comes as a set to install in your alarm straight from the DOE facility.
It was so onerous that the company I worked for stopped all activities with the isotopic generators.
At this time only Lockheed Martin and Boeing deal in aerospace rtg's.
RTG's used to be owned by persons and companies but that has been stopped cold. General Dynamics used to sell a Sr90 RTG for 60,000 dollars in the 60's for comercial use. Only Space and military get them now.
Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15024
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Gee, what ever happen to Ike's dream of "Atoms For Peace".
Down a rabbit hole or into the Looking Glass, I guess, along with a lot of other cool cold war thoughts about man's shining atomic future.
Plus, there is always those nasty old terroists upsetting the American dream. We will pin the tail on the donkey. It is just never ourselves.
Richard Hull
Down a rabbit hole or into the Looking Glass, I guess, along with a lot of other cool cold war thoughts about man's shining atomic future.
Plus, there is always those nasty old terroists upsetting the American dream. We will pin the tail on the donkey. It is just never ourselves.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Nuclear Batteries
Adam Szendrey wrote:
> I whole heartedly agree with you, believe me! I'm sure it can be
> done, and i would happily experiment around with
> radioisotopes...but...even if i would have the needed safety gear to
> handle strong gamma emitters, obtaining these isotopes is probably
> close to impossible, due to regulations...i have no idea what kind of
> licences one would need to obtain for instance, Pu-238.
>
> Adam
Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon a " 'Plutonium Powered Pacemaker' ... including thermoelectric batteries containing 2 to 4 curies of plutonium-238" today...
http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/Misc ... emaker.htm
> I whole heartedly agree with you, believe me! I'm sure it can be
> done, and i would happily experiment around with
> radioisotopes...but...even if i would have the needed safety gear to
> handle strong gamma emitters, obtaining these isotopes is probably
> close to impossible, due to regulations...i have no idea what kind of
> licences one would need to obtain for instance, Pu-238.
>
> Adam
Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon a " 'Plutonium Powered Pacemaker' ... including thermoelectric batteries containing 2 to 4 curies of plutonium-238" today...
http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/Misc ... emaker.htm