> The perovskite betavoltaic cell achieved impressive parameters, including a short-circuit current density of 15.01 nA cm−2, an open-circuit voltage of 2.75 mV, and an energy conversion efficiency of 1.83%, all of which represent significant improvements over previous works.
Will it ever be comparable to a "real" battery? The energy output has a clear upper limit. Are there materials that produce only beta particles at a high enough rate per gram that could power a cell phone with a half life of more than a few days?
Assuming you could get these to 10% efficiency (which is theoretically possible) and a phone needs 0.2W of energy to function then you would need a source capable of supplying 2W of energy (of which 1.8W would be dissipated as heat). The phone would be fairly hot all the time but 2W could be dissipated without it overheating in most environments. Strontium 90 generates 0.95 W/g so in theory a few grams of strontium 90 would be enough to power your phone for many decades (the half life is 28 years). But if someone were to accidentally put such a phone into an insulating material it might overheat and become a dangerous radioactive mess!
Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:
[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.
[ ] it will be too expensive for users.
[ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
[ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
[ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.
[ ] its charge rate is too slow.
[ ] its materials are too toxic.
[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
[ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
Cute, but you're supposed to actually mark the applicable ones.
More importantly, there is no claim that it is better than li-ion. They're targeting low power devices used for very long times where replacement is impossible or undesirable.
Your comment applies to most of these articles. However, this one is a bit different. It is actually a niche product for specific devices, especially those that require decades of operation without recharging.
RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generator) are already in use for both deeps space and remote applications. Not sure how this differ. Maybe better efficiency? Still, why is it called a battery instead of a generator?
Oh, maybe size as RTGs are bulky.
edit: there have been very small RTGs for use in pacemakers. The difference is really that these are not thermal but use the beta flux directly.
It is easy to imagine a future where tiny nano-electronics are embedded into pretty much everything everywhere. The plants in the field that call for treatment at the first sign of insects or infection, for example.
I'm guessing there _are_ applications where you don't need a lot of power, but you do want it over a long time and without needing to charge or replace batteries.
It's also easy to imagine places where, whilst power is available, there are manufacturing advantages in not needing to. For example it might make economic sense to have self-powered wirelessly-connected sensors on car bumpers just to avoid the manufacturing cost of wiring them all up?
Pacemakers need a hell of a lot of power for a short amount of time occasionally. To do that you need to store it in something which can be discharged quickly and is low impedance. Which is a capacitor.
This thing generates so little power you couldn’t charge a capacitor up quickly enough or keep one charged with the leakage.
A lot of pacemakers on the market today are remote access. They can be dialled into by your doctor and adjusted, in concert with live alerts and logs. Thats not infintisimal power requirements. (Cellular is cheap, but not nothing.)
Whilst we do have long lasting applications in places, a pacemaker was a poor choice of the article.
Readit News
> The perovskite betavoltaic cell achieved impressive parameters, including a short-circuit current density of 15.01 nA cm−2, an open-circuit voltage of 2.75 mV, and an energy conversion efficiency of 1.83%, all of which represent significant improvements over previous works.
Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:
[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.
[ ] it will be too expensive for users.
[ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
[ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
[ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.
[ ] its charge rate is too slow.
[ ] its materials are too toxic.
[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
[ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
[ ] your claims are lies
More importantly, there is no claim that it is better than li-ion. They're targeting low power devices used for very long times where replacement is impossible or undesirable.
Oh, maybe size as RTGs are bulky.
edit: there have been very small RTGs for use in pacemakers. The difference is really that these are not thermal but use the beta flux directly.
Deleted Comment
https://www.technologyreview.com/2008/10/23/217918/x-rays-ma...
I'm guessing there _are_ applications where you don't need a lot of power, but you do want it over a long time and without needing to charge or replace batteries.
It's also easy to imagine places where, whilst power is available, there are manufacturing advantages in not needing to. For example it might make economic sense to have self-powered wirelessly-connected sensors on car bumpers just to avoid the manufacturing cost of wiring them all up?
This thing generates so little power you couldn’t charge a capacitor up quickly enough or keep one charged with the leakage.
Whilst we do have long lasting applications in places, a pacemaker was a poor choice of the article.