# Nuclear Battery holds 1,000,000 times the energy...



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

From the BBC

Hmmm, could we buy a LOT of these to power our EVs?


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Those little nuclear cells look like the ones from this site.

http://www.powerstream.com/ultra-light.htm
So if one of these LiPo cells gives 15mAh we can do some math here (15*.001)*1,000,000=15,000Ah over hundreds of years. So lets say we drain it in 100 years. 100*365.25=36,525 days/15,000Ah=2.435Ahr per day or 101milliamps constant power. That would be an extreme stab in the dark though. I'm curious how much current one of those can actually provide and what voltage they provide it at. Even if it were a low current device that could provide power over time, it could mean that you could parallel one of the nuclear packs with a standard pack and then it could charge up standard rechargable chemistries capable of the higher constant current capability needed for an EV so you wouldn't need to plug in as often or at all and the extra could be shunted.

It would be cool to have a battery that you would never have to worry about charging!! I'll take one for an EV, my cell phone, and my laptop. Apparently they are safe too, so it is like the LiFePO4(in comparison to LiCoO2) of stored nuclear power.


----------



## vpoppv (Jul 27, 2009)

"People hear the word 'nuclear' and think of something very dangerous," Dr Jae said. 

I know that I was picturing Chernobyl in my trunk....


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Shades of Dr. Evil...

Really, they can make "black boxes" which survive aircraft crashes at 500+mph, I think they could devise a safe storage container for million year batteries.

The only question then, is whether the power density is sufficient for driving.


----------



## Stunt Driver (May 14, 2009)

Little Chernobyl will happen if you crash and spill material all over. Or if designing bulletproof box around it - likely to be expensive. Even thou idea seems nice - I doubt it will ever make it into cars for the safety or cost reasons. Don't take me as pissimist, I'm just discounting for all the buerocracy


----------



## Jokerzwild (Jun 11, 2009)

Hmmmmm, do not allow 3rd world countries to produce nuclear power plants, but allow every Tom, Dick and moron in our community to have a small piece of nuclear power. How long before some miss understood moron cracks it open to see if licking it will give him a new high?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Jokerzwild said:


> Hmmmmm, do not allow 3rd world countries to produce nuclear power plants, but allow every Tom, Dick and moron in our community to have a small piece of nuclear power. How long before some miss understood moron cracks it open to see if licking it will give him a new high?


I don't know, but it will probably be measured in nanoseconds...


----------



## yarross (Jan 7, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> Hmmm, could we buy a LOT of these to power our EVs?


Not suitable.
These have very low efficiency (3-7% or so). Assuming you need 15kWe you would need 150-250kWth. Radioisotopic sources release heat whenever you use them or not. Imagine hot summer and your garage with parked 200kW heater.
Also, the cost would eat you.


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

The biggest probably historically with Nuclear batteries has always been the extremely low power density... even though they have very high energy density.

In other words ... the total energy Watt hours they produce over the 100+ years they run for is very high Wh/g.... but they have never had the short term cranking power Watts ... they produce power in a constantly decaying fashion.

They work well for application like space probes where energy density massively trumps the tiny bits of power output, and budgets are in the $ multi-Million range ... but for the rest of us... a battery of 100 kg in your EV needs to put out peak power rates way higher than ~100Watts... and for the cost $ and weight , you can do much better with other things in people mover EV applications.

Kind of like setting up an old crystal radio rig and instead of powering the speaker you use those milli-amps to ssssllllllloooooowwwwlllllyyyyy recharge batteries ... and given a ~100 year operating time the small weight of the unit means it will have good energy density... but its power density still sucks.

No matter how much total Ah a battery holds if its real time peak power output is too small it won't even be able to counter some other batteries self discharge rate.


----------



## mxmtech (Apr 21, 2009)

I'll bet you can't buy any at any price. Maybe they're for the Chevy Volt. Looks bogus to me.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

I'm sure it isn't bogus since they DO already use them in space ships; but I agree we aren't likely to see them anytime soon in WalMart.

Around a decade ago I saw an article in PopSci about "nuclear power" generating electricity, but it was "safe" because whatever they were using didn't get hot unless you continually bombarded it with low energy microwaves. Kind of like the old nuclear damping rods in reverse - lack of input instantly shut the "reaction" down. Such a thing might be safe for commercial use - but since we haven't heard anything about it recently I'll wager it was a low-yield for power generation.


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

Just hook these NBs up to some EEStor unobtanium, and constantly charge the EEStors up from the NBs. 

Then we can hook them up to some of those super-efficient AC motors and controllers that no one can buy, and have a really nice EV. 
________
Laguna Bay Condominium


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Amberwolf said:


> Just hook these NBs up to some EEStor unobtanium, and constantly charge the EEStors up from the NBs.
> 
> Then we can hook them up to some of those super-efficient AC motors and controllers that no one can buy, and have a really nice EV.


Well, given the unobtanium we could skip directly to antigravity!


----------

