Comments on: A Penny-Sized Nuclear Battery Could Keep Going, and Going…

By: Terry

Terry — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:20:17 +0000

What about using this technology on a larger scale, like running your car on them or powering your home? Would be nice not to fill your car up for 20 years or so.

By: Lance

Lance — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:50:14 +0000

Hmmm. I love the idea of these really small batteries, but to reduce it to the size of a human hair? How will I be able to find it or handle it. Emerging new energy technology is mind boggling.

By: bongwater

bongwater — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:53:47 +0000

Carter, if there is one thing I hate more than a distracted driver, its a cancerous camera.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:46:56 +0000

Irradiated food was a way to use spent tubes for profit, at thed cost of consumer health. Flouride was brought to us by Aluminum companies tired of throwing away their dust, now they pollute our drinking water with it.

At least a dump full of glowing pennies might ennervate some bacteria to like the taste of plastic bottles and foam cups.

By: vux

vux — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:45:28 +0000

i think what roy was trying to say was,
“can we do the same thing w the radiation coming off of nuclear waste?”
i’d like to know myself

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:25:43 +0000

Does that last comment even remotely apply to this discussion, much less make any sense??

By: Roy

Roy — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:39:09 +0000

Hey! does this mean its possible to construct radiation “solar panels” and stick ‘em onto nuclear waste, thereby rendering nuclear waste a good thing?

By: scribbler

scribbler — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:05:55 +0000

Two points…

One is that the material is degrading whether we take advantage of it or not. The other is that we usually only toss something when it is of no easily obtainable use. It’s easy to imagine that even if you toss the device that you would remove and keep a battery with a year or more’s life in it…

By: Cory

Cory — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:35:59 +0000

When the battery runs out, it will no longer be radioactive, or at least much nearer to a stable state and thus much less radioactive. We’re not talking U-238 batteriess.

By: Carter

Carter — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:28:39 +0000

Martin: A mention of the ‘W’ word in this article might have been a speculation as to how they may minimize battery waste. Imagine a day in the not so distant future when your digital camera can take pictures of another galaxy while you’re driving with it in your hand. And it doesn’t use disposable, wasteful batteries or rechargeable ones that have to be replaced every couple of years or less. It uses nuclear power! You never have to mess with the battery once you get it. True, once you get a new camera and toss the old one out, something would have to be done with its radioactive components. But we ought to be good enough at recycling by then to manage, or at least scan the trash for radioactivity and quarantine nuclear trash.

By: Tree Lobsters

Tree Lobsters — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:35:01 +0000

torres: No mention of what this particular one uses as an isotope but a similar device developed a few years ago used nickel-63.

By: Martin g

Martin g — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:54:55 +0000

Hmmmm . . . no mention of the ‘W’ word then ?

As in ‘ Waste ‘.

Perhaps we haven’t already got enough problems with heavy metals from batteries contaminating landfill sites for many hundreds of years to come ?

Why not up the odds and dump millions of dead nuke-batts too ?

Our descendants will no doubt be amused to look back on our childish and tenuous grip on reality and responsibility ( after they’ve cleaned up the mess ).

By: torres

torres — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:40:41 +0000

What kind of nuclear material is being used? Is it plutonium, radium, uranium, thorium… These kinds of things matter when writing a science piece don’t they?