Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animats | Hacker News Reader

Nickel-63. Not too bad. It's a beta emitter. The risks are low, unless you eat the thing.[1]

"By placing a 2 micrometer-thick nickel-63 thin film between two diamond semiconductor converters, the decay energy of the radioactive source can be converted into electrical current, creating an independent modular unit." Nice. Packaged that way, it's not likely to become airborne pollution. Even in a fire.

As is usual for battery articles, the claims of applications are excessive. This could be useful for many small items that need battery replacement, but is unlikely to be enough for drones, etc. Watch-sized wearables, maybe.

A similar concept was announced in Russia in 2018.[2] The one from China seems further along.

[1] https://ehs.princeton.edu/laboratory-research/radiation-safe...

[2] https://phys.org/news/2018-06-prototype-nuclear-battery-powe...

View on HN

> Unless you eat the thing

Normal batteries aren't good for you if you do that, either.

They are mostly sealed though, so you'd probably just pass it?

The inside of your body is wet, so even low voltages can make a complete circuit. Something as simple as a CR2032 button battery can burn you from the inside.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hPKSJD3xbok

https://youtu.be/qQcxNTNRME4

Not for the button batteries. They are especially dangerous, because the physical distance between the poles is small, and your digestive tract is filled with electrolytic solutions. They can cause chemical burns and even death.

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/at...

https://www.poison.org/battery/stats

There are some number of deaths a year from this.

Weirdly I was listening to a radio show about the Voyager space craft a few days ago and they talked about the nuclear batteries powering those, making me wonder if this was something that could be used here on earth. I know absolutely nothing about this tech so thanks for this useful tempering of the hype.

This tech has been used on Earth from the 50s. Notably it has already been used in the 70s in the heart pacemaker batteries implanted right into human body! Any hype is unwarranted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

> many small items that need battery replacement,

environmental sensors maybe?

I have real doubts about this tech being viable on the market. For one thing there's a huge psychological barrier for many people, as anyone who has worked in nuclear power can tell you. There's also the issue that this relies on Nickel-63, and while unfortunately info on total demand/production is significantly paywalled, I don't think it's enough to support something like this. Outside of chromatography and explosives detection, there isn't a huge market for it, which implies low production.

It is also true that it isn't as dangerous as many other isotopes, but unless these batteries are sealed to last 100+ years, disposal/recycling is going to be an issue. That will add cost, even if the production of Nickel-63 can be scaled up from (probably) 10's of kg's to 1000's of kg's annually.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com