Hacker News Reader

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?

What could possibly go wrong?

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?

Well, there aren't many reliable chemical battery designs that can last for a few decades. We have stuff that lasts for at most one decade or two, and we have the nuclear stuff.

Of course, if you are using the nuclear stuff, you will prefer something shorter lived, so you can use a smaller battery. But I don't see why that huge objection on using the longer lived stuff too.

After death, the person will be giving back his/hers "water of life", like in Dune, to be reused by others :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com