Diamond batteries

simmo · #1 05-12-2016, 03:58 PM

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Ge...he-Future.html

Hope that this battery is going to be powerful enough to power cars, motorbikes and machinery.

Cleaner world would be nice. I sometimes stand at a busy intersection and the fumes are disgusting.

Just hope that its not bought out and put on a shelf.

Could make some interesting bling gadgets to i would imagine.

GTB_an_Owl (Geoff) · #2 05-12-2016, 04:23 PM

find of the century if it works out

geoff

AndrewJ · #3 05-12-2016, 05:01 PM

Hmmm, a battery that doesnt run out.
How long before Phoebus arises again.

Andrew

w0mbat (Ian) · #4 05-12-2016, 05:04 PM

I thought it was a very poorly written and even deceptive article. Firstly it makes no mention of the power output from the "battery". Secondly it says it will use Carbon 14. This is a small part of the waste generated in a nuclear plant but it then implies that the battery is a solution to the nuclear waste problem!
It then tries to blame a lot of the upfront costs of a nuclear plant on litigation from NIMBYs etc and ,typically, makes no mention of the huge cost of storing waste essentially forever and the equally huge cost of decommissioning worn out nuclear plants.
The proposed use of nuclear fission as a "green" energy source is, in my view, completely deluded.
Fusion might be a possible solution but seems way too far off to be any realistic solution to our current crisis.
Ian

xelasnave · #5 05-12-2016, 05:40 PM

Damn it will put my motor that runs on water out of business.
I must say I am rather sceptical that this is legit.
There is a saying we all know.. If it seems too good to be true it is probably not true.
I hope there is hope behind all this but I suspect this is the last we hear of it...
But who knows there was a time man could never fly.
Alex

ZeroID (Brent) · #6 05-12-2016, 06:10 PM

I would imagine it would need a significant amount of radiation to generate any usable voltage\current if it works at all.
And diamond is not a good radiation shield at all. It is only carbon and has a very open atomic structure. Very little to stop radioactive particles passing through. They don't use lead as shielding for nothing.

julianh72 (Julian) · #7 05-12-2016, 06:17 PM

What I can't find anywhere is a statement as to the "Specific Energy Density" that the diamond battery can theoretically store / produce.

Synthetic industrial diamonds are cheaper than natural diamonds, but they are still quite expensive to produce (although the cost would reduce if production ramps up.) However, if you can only generate a few milliwatts (or microwatts?) per gram of diamond, it is hard to see how they would be a cost-effective energy source for most practical purposes.

Even if they can achieve a few hundred millwatts per gram (similar to current battery technology, for example), you would need several kilograms of diamonds per kilowatt. Imagine the costs of a diamond power pack required for a typical bike, car or house!

deanm (Dean) · #8 05-12-2016, 06:37 PM

Very dubious...

Dean

Peter.M · #9 05-12-2016, 07:17 PM

numbers are quoted on the link provided. They are still pretty deceptive, they are implying that it is comparible to a AA battery, it can only output 15 Joules per day.

" The actual amount of carbon-14 in each battery has yet to be decided but one battery, containing 1g of carbon-14, would deliver 15 Joules per day. This is less than an AA battery. Standard alkaline AA batteries are designed for short timeframe discharge: one battery weighing about 20g has an energy storage rating of 700J/g. If operated continuously, this would run out in 24 hours. Using carbon-14 the battery would take 5,730 years to reach 50 per cent power, which is about as long as human civilization has existed"

bojan · #10 05-12-2016, 07:48 PM

Energy density is almost surely very, very small...
Compared to plutonium cell (used in some spacecrafts) it's negligible.

AstralTraveller (David) · #11 05-12-2016, 09:24 PM

At least you will always be able to tell how old your battery is.

julianh72 (Julian) · #12 06-12-2016, 09:48 AM

On the plus side, I can see a whole new product-line opportunity - diamond jewellery and "bling" which can recharge your mobile phone. (In fact - maybe diamond-encrusted mobile phones will become the norm, rather than a display of ostentatious wealth.)

simmo · #13 06-12-2016, 10:04 AM

I was thinking something similar this morning.
How good would it be to never charge your phone or tablet again. Not to mention a bunch of other things that run on batteries. Torch, tv remote, kids toys that they leave on to go flat after one night....

Wavytone · #14 06-12-2016, 07:15 PM

Must have been written by an arts faculty type with no idea.

15J per day = 0.00017 watts, i.e. les than 0.2 milliwatts.

That's not going to go very far towards powering ANYTHING. Its not even enough for an AppleTV remote - never mind a mobile phone.

ZeroID (Brent) · #15 06-12-2016, 07:51 PM

OK, a massive leap forward in Super Capacitors that really is the deal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-seconds.html

Extremely rapid charge, high charge density,

Wavytone · #16 06-12-2016, 09:33 PM

Yawn... When its a commercial product theres something to talk about, not before. I've seen so many "maybe" and "could be" articles that I'd be rich if I made $0.01 from each one.

Supercaps merely shift the CO2 emissions to somewhere else - usually the power station. Admittedly they are better than batteries in one respect - we won't poison the planet in the process of using these.

And never mind the roughly 1/3 lost in the transmission from supply to supercap.

AussieTrooper (Ben) · #17 07-12-2016, 08:21 AM

The non-rubbish link to the UK article is far more informative.
It talks about the battery being for extremely low power, long life applications only.
The original article seems to be like something a lobbyist who wants to spin any excuse for nuclear power, and insult anyone who raises questions.
"NIMBY" is a phrase that is often used by lobbyists to try and force a project with big negative side effects on locals who don't want it and won't benefit from it.

Wavytone · #18 07-12-2016, 08:58 PM

Ben I think its simpler than that.

Its quite easy for someone who has a vested interest (i.e. monetary gain) to peddle a half-baked idea to starry-eyed 20-something journos who cant add 2 plus 2 and get an obscene amount of positive hype published, to extent foolish investors who don't know any better will tip on a bucketload of money (which was the whole point of the exercise).

And it will be quietly forgotten without a whimper when the originator simply says "sorry folks it didn't work" after the cash has disappeared.

he investors won't want to be seen a gullible mugs and rarely kick up much of a stink. Anyone else will say "you took the risk..., c'est la vie, old chum".

But the reality is they - and the media - will be played for what they are - ignoramuses - when it comes to science and technology.

This one is little better than perpetual motion machines.

OICURMT · #19 08-12-2016, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeroID

I would imagine it would need a significant amount of radiation to generate any usable voltage\current if it works at all.
And diamond is not a good radiation shield at all. It is only carbon and has a very open atomic structure. Very little to stop radioactive particles passing through. They don't use lead as shielding for nothing.

An observation.

Nickel-63 was being used. Consequently, during the decay process into Cu-63, beta radiation is released. Beta radiation can be blocked by a thin sheet of Aluminum or even a block of wood. Lower density substances are preferable to something like lead, because the secondary gamma radiation caused by the beta particle hitting matter has less energy if the blocking substrate is of lower density. So diamonds may actually be satisfactory, possible surrounded by aluminum or plastic.

Carbon-14 decays to N-14 in a similar fashion to Ni-63.

Trivia: If you own a surge protector, you most likely have Ni-63 in your home...