| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Radiation to electricity via Nanotechnology |
| 2008-04-03 |
| Now US researchers say they have developed highly efficient materials that can convert the radiation, not heat, from nuclear materials and reactions into electricity. Tests ... [this will likely take years] ... of layered tiles of carbon nanotubes packed with gold and surrounded by lithium hydride are under way. Radioactive particles that slam into the gold push out a shower of high-energy electrons. They pass through carbon nanotubes and pass into the lithium hydride from where they move into electrodes, allowing current to flow. -a decent guess is that at least a half decade of physics and another half decade of engineering is needed to develop this - assuming it can be developed-- however, it sounds totally cool |
| Posted by:mhw |
| #10 Interesting. I wonder how hot these tiles can get and maintain efficiency. The article isn't perfectly clear, but it sounds like they aren't relying on nuclear reactions in gold, but instead they try to capture the "knock-on" electrons that have crossed from the gold into the lithium hydride layer. When a fast charged particle moves through matter it will ionize some of the nearby atoms, and some of the electrons will be given enough kinetic energy to travel significant distances. See section 27.2.3. We already use the heat in a reactor--this might be a way to get a little DC from it as well. If the sandwich can stand the heat, of course. |
| Posted by: James 2008-04-03 20:50 |
| #9 Wonder what H. Beam Piper would say? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-04-03 18:45 |
| #8 remember former president Gerry Ford his energy plan called for, as I recall, 50-100 new reactors between the 3-mi island event, a movie, the Simpsons and generally rampant environmental sabotage of progress in this area, no President even had a chance to do anything |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-04-03 17:15 |
| #7 Looking at it a bit more, I believe this is a waste of time. 85% (170 of 200 Mega electron Volts) of the energy of nuclear fission is in the kinetic energy of the product atoms (Ba, Kr). The those products are trapped and will release their energy as heat. The mobile products, 3 neutrons and X-rays, Beta particles, neutrinos) only carry 15% of the fission energy. Stick to the thermal designs. That said, I believe our leadership has failed miserably, to the point of treason, by not implementing a national program to build nuclear energy plants. After 6 years, we should be cranking out one new reactor a week for outselves and selling excess production to our allies. All at a cost less than Iraq and Afghanistan and a tiny fraction of the $400 billion we will spend this year on oil imports. That energy could be used to electrify the transportation grid and convert a minority fraction of coal production to liquid fuels. With proper location, even the waste heat could be used to heat and cool entire cities or used for industrial and agricultural purposes. In 10 years, the US could be self sufficient of imported oil. The vision is so lacking it almost seems like our leadership wants to keep us dependent on those who wish to see us dead. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-04-03 17:04 |
| #6 Ed, we are doing something along parallel lines. Ten years is reasonable for first fielding of pilots. There is a lot of work in this area, but there is no 'new science', just a different approach. No new engineering hurdles present themselves (so far). Their approach seems cumbersome to me; I wonder if they have benchtop systems working yet. We don't, yet, but will in less than 18 months. What we have now is strictly developmental level, but what we have now already works, albeit inefficiently / not high output. However, the word 'efficientcy' takes on a whole new meaning when you are essentially scavenging what was previously released and are now putting it to good use. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2008-04-03 16:20 |
| #5 I'd say 20 years is optimistic. The power industry is slow to accept new products. And this innovation, if it even pans out, requires a new paradigm in how electricity is generated. There is a new field of reactor research and engineering, electric generation and control, and materials science to solve and get confidence in. For instance, I can see this reactor using fuel pellets surrounded by the gold/nanotube electic generating system, surrounded by a graphite moderator and gas cooled. That in itself is a huge R&D effort and very dangerous if not done correctly. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-04-03 16:03 |
| #4 Duh of course it's a circuit. I should have realized that. Thanks Ed. Now, what's a reasonable time frame for product delivery? ;^) Could this be real in 10 years, or, is this still really theoretical? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-04-03 15:40 |
| #3 It's a closed electric circuit. Same as a generator when it pushes out electrons receives the same number of electrons via the returning wires or earth ground. Nuclear fission releases neutrons. Gold that absorbs a neutron becomes radioactive. It must absorb a proton, then it turns into mercury. The researchers are claiming up to 20X efficiency. The low end of thermoelectric generator is 3%. So 60% is a fantastic number, esp. compared to steam based nuclear power plants at 30-35% efficiency. I hope it is even partially doable. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-04-03 15:17 |
| #2 My chemistry and physics are waaaaaaaaay too long ago to know the answer to this so could someone help me out? IIRC there are equal numbers of electrons & protons in an atom. So, what happens to the extra protons when these electrons take flight? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-04-03 13:53 |
| #1 I wonder what that gold turns into when it loses those electrons? Is this a way to turn gold into lead? /s It will be interesting to see how this develops. |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-04-03 12:56 |