Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,182 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,529 Posts
I like the yellow legs. As for the rest of it, I'll reserve judgment until I see it powering a pure EV that never needs charging. Unfortunately, I won't live that long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
274 Posts
Making diamonds is rather difficult. Dismantling the radioactive graphite cores of decommissioned nuclear reactors and safely handling the radioactive waste is doubly tricky.

Taking said radioactive waste, handling it, processing it into a feedstock and then using it in the equipment used to make diamonds, no doubt contaminating that production equipment with radioactivity in the process.... what could possibly go wrong ? How difficult could that be?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
I’ll defer to @donald on this (as ever), but the one thing that makes me suspicious is the Carbon-14 reference.

If it were this easy to make a nuclear battery from the substance they would be messing with Plutonium.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,264 Posts
No need to wait for donald, it was debunked by thunderfoot ages ago:

 
  • Like
Reactions: cah197

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
29,246 Posts
C14 is a bit of a waste issue and someone proposed this a few years in a manner I assumed was an 'industry joke' to get rid of it.

OK, I will just run get the data ...

C14 has an activity of 170GBq/g and has a 100% beta decay path (i.e. doesn't produce gammas) with a (what is a relatively) low energy of 156keV.

That means as long as you don't swallow the stuff it'll be reasonably harmless to you as long as you don't make skin lotion or eye drops out of it.

Let's talk electricity. We have to discuss energy density and power density.

The energy density is going to be great because it's nuclear, right? 14 grammes of the stuff (one mole) will have a total energy capacity of 4,100 kWh.

Phew.

On that, they can sell to unwary investors.

And now we have the crux of it ... power density. You know, people who always get kW and kWh confused and say 'well it doesn't matter, does it'.

... errr.. yeah, it matters, matters alot.

So the power density [total nuclear emission] is 4mW per gramme. If that was by thermal conversion then expect it to be 1mW per gramme, or say 100W per 100kg of mass (not including the thermal conversion).

... and, yes, this has been done before. The Russians loved their thermal nuclear batteries, there were quite a few made (not with C14, something more useful).

But the only practical way would be by direct electrical conversion, one 156keV electron might be used to spallate say ~50 more off a metal target and caught by a collector electrode, so maybe 50 x 1eV for a 1microamp current per gramme (at one volt)

So that'd then be 0.1A at 1 V from a 100kg battery pack, i.e. 0.1W.

Not gonna power an EV from that.

The reason that there is such disparity between energy and power density is because it'd be an energy source that will run continuously for 8,200 years (that's the mean life, not half life).

Plenty of mug investors that like that sort of thing, all the best to 'em....
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
29,246 Posts
It sounds too good to be true. :unsure:
Nuclear energy is amazing and fantastic, very much too good to be true, and we 'cracked' it!!! WTF are we still burning dead dinosaurs?

We just have to do it the right way and not try to weaponise it.

Russians liked using strontium 90. Not nice if you ingest it, it is preferentially taken up by your bones. Quite active (28 year half life, rather than 5,500 for C14, i.e. about 200 times more active) and about half a watt per gramme.

After a few decades, it seems the Russians just abandon them! Take your pick.

134098
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top