4 ms·

Sounds like another recycling nightmare to me. To the endless stream of electronic thrash come radioactive materials polluting everything for hundred years. The

by lnsru 2y ago

Sounds like another recycling nightmare to me. To the endless stream of electronic thrash come radioactive materials polluting everything for hundred years. The use cases do not convince me either. Why eternal battery when cheap electronics will fail earlier anyway.

smegger001 2y ago
We already use radioactive materials in our smoke alarms. And they aren't eternal batteries either. To longlived a isotope wont output enough power (long lived means less decay events to release energy in a given amount of time), conversly you probably dont want to energetic an energy source as it will decay to quickly. And the batterys energy output will decrease by 50% every halflife so you either have a device that has more energy than it needs early in its life cycle or it will need the power source replaced before its estimated end of life, or third possibility your device like voyager space probes gracefully looses functionality as it ages to consume less power.
- throwaway5752 2y ago
  The radioactive material in ionization smoke detectors (Americium 241) is present to create ionizing radiation, not to create power. An alpha particle source is a less discretionary use for radioactive materials than generating electricity to run the devices, which typically run on lithium or alkaline batteries if they aren't hardwired.
  - smegger001 2y ago
    i am aware they aren't used as batteries in the smoke alarm. I was referring to the part of the gp's comment that radioactive batteries were eternal batteries destined to be horrible radioactive e-waste that far outlive the device they are built in. I was pointing out we already have radioactive elements in widespread use in home electronics and that they weren't "eternal batteries"
    - throwaway5752 2y ago
      I got the sense you knew that. It was just ambiguous in your post and I was clarifying for anyone that might have misread it in the way that I did. No offense intended. It is interesting and I wish I were more of an expert in this area to be able to evaluate the claims in the article made by parties with commercial interests in the topic. I have a sense that the amount of Am-241 in smoke detectors would be many orders of magnitude smaller than in batteries.
esskay 2y ago
Solutions are already being made for spent nuclear fuel, no reason why that wouldn't apply in this scenario. In fact its massive overkill for this particular situation but still an option if its needed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50
- kvemkon 2y ago
  > These tunnels are designed for 100,000 years Reminds me of: "Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts" (19.05.2017) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-s... https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flooded-thanks-global-warming/ https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flo... https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/doomsday-arctic-seed-vault-floods-permafrost-melts-svalbard-global-seed-vault-a7746526.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/doomsday-a... "Perma" means not "just" 100000 years, but forever. The reality is different and unpredictable. Doomsday-proof architectures fail already nowadays.
  - elcritch 2y ago
    Yet there are places which have been geologically stable for 100's of millions of years or more. Change does happen but the risks can be made negligible compared to the various risks associated with other sources of energy. The damages of worse case nuclear waste leakage would also likely be very localized and manageable. Meanwhile fossil fuels have enormous environmental impacts across huge areas. Even solar and wind have large ecological impacts and aren't (likely) capable of replacing fossil fuels in time to prevent potentially catastrophic effects from global warming. It's all about weighing the risks.
  - smegger001 2y ago
    it doesen't need to last forever though just long enough that it doesn't raise radiation levels a unsafe amount over the natural background radiation load. those elements are already present in the ground thats where we get them after all.

by lnsru 2y ago

smegger001 2y ago

We already use radioactive materials in our smoke alarms. And they aren't eternal batteries either. To longlived a isotope wont output enough power (long lived means less decay events to release energy in a given amount of time), conversly you probably dont want to energetic an energy source as it will decay to quickly. And the batterys energy output will decrease by 50% every halflife so you either have a device that has more energy than it needs early in its life cycle or it will need the power source replaced before its estimated end of life, or third possibility your device like voyager space probes gracefully looses functionality as it ages to consume less power.

throwaway5752 2y ago
The radioactive material in ionization smoke detectors (Americium 241) is present to create ionizing radiation, not to create power. An alpha particle source is a less discretionary use for radioactive materials than generating electricity to run the devices, which typically run on lithium or alkaline batteries if they aren't hardwired.
- smegger001 2y ago
  i am aware they aren't used as batteries in the smoke alarm. I was referring to the part of the gp's comment that radioactive batteries were eternal batteries destined to be horrible radioactive e-waste that far outlive the device they are built in. I was pointing out we already have radioactive elements in widespread use in home electronics and that they weren't "eternal batteries"
  - throwaway5752 2y ago
    I got the sense you knew that. It was just ambiguous in your post and I was clarifying for anyone that might have misread it in the way that I did. No offense intended. It is interesting and I wish I were more of an expert in this area to be able to evaluate the claims in the article made by parties with commercial interests in the topic. I have a sense that the amount of Am-241 in smoke detectors would be many orders of magnitude smaller than in batteries.

esskay 2y ago

Solutions are already being made for spent nuclear fuel, no reason why that wouldn't apply in this scenario. In fact its massive overkill for this particular situation but still an option if its needed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50

kvemkon 2y ago
> These tunnels are designed for 100,000 years Reminds me of: "Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts" (19.05.2017) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-s... https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flooded-thanks-global-warming/ https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flo... https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/doomsday-arctic-seed-vault-floods-permafrost-melts-svalbard-global-seed-vault-a7746526.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/doomsday-a... "Perma" means not "just" 100000 years, but forever. The reality is different and unpredictable. Doomsday-proof architectures fail already nowadays.
- elcritch 2y ago
  Yet there are places which have been geologically stable for 100's of millions of years or more. Change does happen but the risks can be made negligible compared to the various risks associated with other sources of energy. The damages of worse case nuclear waste leakage would also likely be very localized and manageable. Meanwhile fossil fuels have enormous environmental impacts across huge areas. Even solar and wind have large ecological impacts and aren't (likely) capable of replacing fossil fuels in time to prevent potentially catastrophic effects from global warming. It's all about weighing the risks.
- smegger001 2y ago
  it doesen't need to last forever though just long enough that it doesn't raise radiation levels a unsafe amount over the natural background radiation load. those elements are already present in the ground thats where we get them after all.