Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

"Nuclear" battery with six orders of magnitude better power density?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Medical implants, very small scale robotics and similar embedded devices.

Usually it is better for a technology if it can be used in as many applications as possible, and a more general use benefits each individual application. The article already mentions that such batteries, in general, are not only used for "pace-makers", but also for "space satellites and underwater systems".

Since the claim is that the batteries are safe, and smaller batteries are desirable in almost any application, I think a sentence or two are missing, which would explain why reducing the size, specifically to below that of an hair, is the only objective the researcher seems to consider worthwhile.

Meanwhile I was reading elsewhere that these batteries would be too expensive to be used (for example) in cars, due to the scarceness of the material. But then, maybe it should not be used for "underwater systems" either, or even be reserved for medical applications.
 
The thing about nuclear batteries to date is that the best ones only use about 8% of the energy and the rest is given off as heat (hopefully, given the alternative!!)

So with a 185kW peak demand, you would need to find a way to dump 2MW!:eek:
 
1.21 GW!! Plutonium has more "punch" :D

pZQ27LJ.jpg
 
Around a decade ago I was wondering if EV powered by nuclear batteries could be build. Problem was - very low power density.

But idea of such car is fascinating - batteries will produce electricity regardless if you drive car or not, for decades to come... Nuclear reaction (radioactive decay) could not be stopped, you know.

I doubt reporter actually meant 6x orders of magnitude of power density increase compared to chemical ones, what he should have wrote is energy density, or more correctly "specific energy" of nuclear batteries is way higher then chemical ones.

Anyhow, I'm ashamed to admit, when I was thinking about nuclear powered EV I was not thinking how all that excessive heat could be dumped:redface:

PS. Radiation they produce could be perfectly shielded by sheet of toilet paper. If you use something more substantial, like metallic or plastic battery enclosure - you are safe. So yeah, those batteries are kindof safe.
 
The thing about nuclear batteries to date is that the best ones only use about 8% of the energy and the rest is given off as heat (hopefully, given the alternative!!)

So with a 185kW peak demand, you would need to find a way to dump 2MW!:eek:

You would need batteries or supercapacitors as a buffer for those moments of high power output.
 
It may be problematic to refer to radioisotope decay power sources as batteries at all, since the only sense in which they can be recharged is to replace the nearly exhausted quantity of radioisotope with a fresh one. I'm pretty sure no one has engineered reversing the radioactive decay when you pump electricity back into one of these! When they speak of power density for an RD power source, they mean the amount of power per unit weight they can deliver for years. I doubt that even the biggest, most expensive RD source used in the most power hungry space probe, produces enough electric power to match what an MS 85 KWH pack delivers when accelerating. There are lots of new battery chemistries and ultra capacitor approaches under development for us to dream of 500mi of range and really fast recharging. Nuclear batteries aren't one of them.
 
Yes but as far as range extenders are concerned I think I'd rather have a radioisotope decay power source than an ICE or Hydrogen Fuel Cell.

It may be problematic to refer to radioisotope decay power sources as batteries at all, since the only sense in which they can be recharged is to replace the nearly exhausted quantity of radioisotope with a fresh one. I'm pretty sure no one has engineered reversing the radioactive decay when you pump electricity back into one of these! When they speak of power density for an RD power source, they mean the amount of power per unit weight they can deliver for years. I doubt that even the biggest, most expensive RD source used in the most power hungry space probe, produces enough electric power to match what an MS 85 KWH pack delivers when accelerating. There are lots of new battery chemistries and ultra capacitor approaches under development for us to dream of 500mi of range and really fast recharging. Nuclear batteries aren't one of them.