The world’s first nuclear-powered battery, which uses a radioactive isotope embedded in a diamond, could power small devices for thousands of years, scientists say.

The nuclear battery uses the reaction of a diamond placed close to a radioactive source to spontaneously produce electricity, scientists at the University of Bristol in the U.K. explained in a Dec. 4 statement. No motion — neither linear nor rotational — is required. That means no energy is needed to move a magnet through a coil or to turn an armature within a magnetic field to produce electric current, as is required in conventional power sources.

The diamond battery harvests fast-moving electrons excited by radiation, similar to how solar power uses photovoltaic cells to convert photons into electricity, the scientists said.

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    they don’t mention size but it sounds like the kind of thing asimov had in the foundation series books (I have not seen the series).

  • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Jesus no. Its bad enough trying to recycle a lead acid or lithium battery.

    Where the fuck am I going to safely recycle nuclear waste embedded in a diamond?!?

    • jherazob@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Or how every time you enter some ancient ruins on some game, EVERYTHING is still working despite not having seen a person in a millenia

  • Zier@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Imagine having your vibrator never run out of power, even on the go.

  • over_clox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    Meanwhile, Apple and Samsung are probably actively trying to sweep this under the digital rug. They can’t have devices out there that last more than 2, maybe 3 years…

    • Godort@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Unfortunately, the tech won’t work for a high-power device like a smartphone. Last I read, these produce energy on the milliwatt scale.

      They’ll be incredibly useful for things like weather sensors and the like.

    • Alphane Moon@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      From the article:

      A single nuclear-diamond battery containing 1 gram [0.04 ounce] of carbon-14 could deliver 15 joules of electricity per day. For comparison, a standard alkaline AA battery, which weighs about 20 grams [0.7 ounces], has an energy-storage rating of 700 joules per gram. It delivers more power than the nuclear-diamond battery would in the short term, but it would be exhausted within 24 hours.

      It seems that even a 100 gram nuclear-diamond battery would not be able to sustain a modern smartphone.

      My calculations might be off, but it seems even a highly optimized low powered smartphone (say 10 watthours for 24 hours under regular use) would need x25 lower power consumption to work with a 100 g nuclear-diamond battery. And you would likely still need an additional battery of some sort (which would need to be replaced) to handle peaks (don’t think modern smartphones can function under ~420 mwatt peak max).

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        I’m gonna drop an addendum…

        A wristwatch should be able to at bare minimum last at least 24 hours (you know, like a full day), before it needs recharge.

        Apple Watch is like the absolute worst example of this, it has an expected battery life of around 18 hours. It doesn’t even function as a proper watch if it can’t even last 24 hours.

        My watch (not my first merry go round with dumb watches), can at least perform their intended timekeeping function for 5 to 10 years, depending on how often you use the backlight button.

        Sometimes dumb tech is nice, I don’t wanna talk to my watch anyways, it’s just there to tell time…

        • Eheran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Who uses something for 24 hours straight? 18 hours is a full day of use. How many need this things to run through the night too and how many resources would be wasted actually making it that way?

          • over_clox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            Ever heard of the alarm function on a watch?

            Yeah, some of us use the alarm, it’s kinda nice when the watch can at least have a few days charge, in case something comes up and I’m out of town longer than expected and didn’t bring my charger.

            Given that the technology for clocks and watches that last upwards of a decade on a single battery has been around for quite a while, I don’t feel I should be bothered having to recharge my watch every day. Besides, smart watches just happen to be yet another tracking device.

            I’m actually a fan of simple dumb watches and clocks that can last a long time, or basically indefinitely. Or just amazing clocks in general…

            Atmos Clock (Powered by atmospheric pressure changes): https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jzl8HutWvw0

            Automatic Self Winding Watch: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZiubuxAAsXE

            Solar Powered Watches: https://youtube.com/watch?v=oHxyp_0rW5M

            Lego Mangle Rack Clock: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GUdlSYC1cCE

            Digital Sundial: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wrsje5It_UU

            Of course you don’t have to watch any of those videos if you don’t care to, but if you have any appreciation for awesome timekeeping devices, you’ll probably find all those videos rather interesting.

            Edit: This happens to be my current watch, a Casio WS-1300H. Mine has a custom modified spiked wrist band…

            https://youtube.com/watch?v=WVAO4_AfPEY

            https://lemmy.world/post/22860120

            Happy Holidays!

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Gotcha, understood.

        Still, why is it that an Apple watch can’t even last 24 hours without needing a recharge, when I’m literally wearing a Casio designed to last 10 fucking years on a single button cell battery (that ain’t even rechargeable no less)?

        • ObsidianZed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          17 hours ago

          To be fair, a standard (non-smart) watch uses a fraction of power compared to an Apple Watch which is still essentially a iPhone.

          With that said, I have a Samsung watch, and though I charge it daily, it could probably last up to 3 days, so I don’t know what Apple is doing.