NuClear battery booster

Communities Vehicles & Mobility
1

my idea slash question would be:

about how much for enough stronium-90 to approximate the output of the average usa home socket ?
OR
eventually i should say, HOW MUCH would the most cost effective/safe-ER method be of getting a nuclear power source Close to a wall socket??

http://www.politics.ie/forum/education-science/247375-nuclear-powered-cars.html

we dont want to “power an electric car”
but if we had a power source like this built on,
we danmed well could trickle charge the car over 12 hours or something ?

lets take a peek at a tesla car and its claimed charging



Most modern residential circuits in the usa are 15 or 20 amps,
so we’re looking at a max load of either (15A x 120V =) 1800 watts
or
(20A x 120V =) 2400 watts before the breaker trips.

sooo we can say hmm, like 55 miles per 12 hours '??"

@wendell hey man, is your math any good ?
@Eden same question
wanna fart around and theory craft expensive shit ??


running off of random peoples numbers ive seen in a forum, sourced ,.,..,.neaahhh


according to theese randos posts here in comments section with zero fact checking… (lol rite)

Thad be roughly 6.5kg of Strontium with a 100% efficient converter,

the guy im reading off of says “there was a converter developed in Missouri “recently””
@ 60% efficient,
granted his post was “2 years ago”

so that mass would get bumped up
9.75KG of material ???= 2500Watt output continuous ???


its power density is only 0.46 kilowatts per kilogram.
he claims " we need around 26 kg of Strontium with a 100% efficient converter to get 10,000 WATTS" " but the one developed in Missouri recently is only 60% efficient, so that gets bumped up to 43.3kg, which is just under 100 lbs of Strontium"
Strontium-90 also requires little shielding, as it decays by β emission, with negligible γ emission. While its half life of 28.8 years
someone good with this type of shit plz fact check my stupid ass.

if we go up to 240 v and 40amp
we REALLY cut down the charge time thoooo

which isnt the point


the whole idea here was how much would the LOWEST ammount BE
that would let us in THEORY
trickle charge a car overnite ?


so the all important question,
how much is different materials that could fit the bill ?

stronium-90 is the substance this guy was talkin bout
Molecular Weight: 89.908 g/mol
Cost, pure: $100 per 100g
Cost, bulk: $ per 100g
but wat about our isotope ?

Strontium-85 can be produced by irradiation of rubidium-85 with accelerated protons or deuterons.
Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols Manual Volume II: Chapters 10-17 and Appendix F. (July 2004) p 14-155 NUREG-1576, EPA 402-B-04-001B, NTIS PB2004-105421. Available from, as of October 12, 2006: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1576/sr1576v2.pdf


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prices_of_elements_and_their_compounds Strontium Sr 38 pure $1000 http://www.chemicool.com/elements/strontium.html

Uses of Strontium
Strontium is used for producing glass (cathode ray tubes) for color televisions. It is also used in producing ferrite ceramic magnets and in refining zinc.

The world’s most accurate atomic clock, accurate to one second in 200 million years, has been developed using strontium atoms.

Strontium salts are used in flares and fireworks for a crimson color.

Strontium chloride is used in toothpaste for sensitive teeth.

Strontium oxide is used to improve the quality of pottery glazes.

The isotope 90Sr is one of the best long-lived, high-energy beta emitters known. It is used in cancer therapy.

Abundance and Isotopes
Abundance earth’s crust: 370 parts per million by weight, 87 parts per million by moles

Abundance solar system: 50 parts per billion by weight, 0.7 parts per billion by moles

Cost, pure: $100 per 100g

Cost, bulk: $ per 100g

Source: Strontium is never found free in nature. The principal strontium ores are celestine (strontium sulfate, SrSO4) and strontianite (strontium carbonate, SrCO3). The main commercial process for strontium metal production is reduction of strontium oxide with aluminum.

Isotopes: Strontium has 28 isotopes whose half-lives are known, with mass numbers 75 to 102. Naturally occurring strontium is a mixture of its four stable isotopes and they are found in the percentages shown: 84Sr (0.6%), 86Sr (9.9%), 87Sr (7.0%) and 88Sr (82.6%).

References

  1. Mary Elvira Weeks, Discovery of the Elements., Journal of Chemical Education (June 1932) p1046.
  2. T. K. Kenyon, Science and Celebrity: Humphry Davy’s Rising Star., Chemical Heritage Magazine, (2008/9 edition).

Cite this Page
For online linking, please copy and paste one of the following:

Strontium

2

lets start of by saying
this is of course a THEORETICAL idea
and in no way feasible
BUTTT


what if someone made a one off car ?
ELON...

First one is the inevitable rise in demand if cars were to use S-90, even just a fraction of the cars produced in the world. From looking around similar articles about nuclear batteries I found one link to a PDF document from the University of Wisconsin.

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/SPRING00/lecture5.pdf

The information that is relevant to this proposal is the estimated production of S-90 in nuclear fission reactors around the world. On page 18 it gives a graph estimating the production of radioisotopes in power plants per year of operation. For S-90, it estimates 16Kg would be produced per 1000 MWeY.

The same source that I got the PDF link from estimates that all the operating nuclear power plants in the world have a capacity of 375,000 MWe, and also does the simple math for us.... 16Kg x 375 == 6,000Kg. That math assumes those reactors are operating at 100%, 24/7, for the full year.

Next we also have to accept that of the 6000Kg, not all of it will be recoverable from nuclear waste. However, while the source of that math didn't include it, I'd point out that S-90 already exists in the form of existing nuclear waste, but you also have to account for its decay year over year (28+ years half life) and of course, quite a lot of it has been disposed of and probably is beyond reasonably safe recovery.

3

I just skip on the nuclear part. Where to people get those amazing ammounts of efficency from?
Nuclear powerplants just about scratch 30% depending on how new they are and if the excess heat is used for heating of nearby buildings. Don´t you dare to tell me "They are 70 to 80% efficent"! Powerplants mechanical to electrical conversion systems might be, having cooling support systems in place indicates that efficency is NOT the whole story. But this is a different story.

Thermoelectric generation is about as inefficent as it gets. The mars rovers have a system to deliver 100W electrically from a 2kW heat source. 5% efficency is great, isn´t it? Even solar cells get more than that.

Lets say we got efficency up to 8% by now (10 years development).
240V * 40A = 9.6kW (elec.)

100W (elec.) / 2kW (elec.) = 0.05 = 5%
so: 9.6kW (elec.) / 0.08 = 120kW (ther.)

Do you know what you can do with 120,000W of thermal energy? You could heat water to about 400°C, pipe it through decent sized turbine&generator and get 25 to 34kW electrical energy from that.
To go even further, you could build powerplants with 1,000MW (elec.) output to boost total efficency even more. The advantage would be better maintainabilty by centralizing systems, oh wait! We allready got that...

4

this is beta decay collection
not thermocoupled energy

while they CAN be used as a more normal HEAT sinking energy capture
im rfering to more direct electron capture

sometimes used in micro electronics to provide minute power for up to 20 years
they used im in Heart uhh
pacemakers for a while there




yadda yadda
betacell efficiencies approaching 8% back in the day

semiconductors over decaying material capturing released electrons

5

I am not that great with nuclear physics, but aren´t electrons (beta particles) very small in the ammount of energy they carry?
Next thing is that the decay position and radiation direction is random. As electrical current is a vector function, random direction is no good.

You are linking a load of wikipedia arcticles, but I can´t find a single research paper or scientific publishing on them. All I found so far was a battery delivering 10nA (nano Ampere) over several months, which is not impressive at all.

And then there is this:

Heya! 8% again!

6

not sure how it physically works actually
but id assume ASSUME
aeny energy radiating freely out in all directions would be striking the case of the device and thus forced into poles directions from the conductive case

7

yeah the beta cell that 80 year old tech, i mentioned that
, in the early 1970s.
excuse me
exaggeration on age

8

The electrons surely have to hit some conductor.

And not any more since then, there have to be reasons for that...

9

yeah they discontinued the idea,
the wiki cites "li-po became easier and cheaper"

ok, lets take the numbers WAY down
how about something a tenth the output ?

run your car DEAD dry in the middle of the hillbilly infested swamp
leave the car off till morning and have the car recharge up to 5 miles of range ?

this is just a theoretical IDEA for fun
lets not get caught up in feasibility too much
here is a quote from stanford

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/kumar2/
.
Conclusions

Atomic batteries can be used for high energy applications typically with low power and 20% efficiency at best. The cost analysis shows Sr-90 and Cs-137 batteries to be very promising. The approximations made in the cost analysis must be borne in mind while reading Fig. 2;



fig2 notated


Fig. 2: Cost per unit energy ($/kJ) plotted against power density (W/kg) of various batteries. [9-14]

it looks like MOST of the tech was based off of the time and true method of capturing HEAT

10

so even if we take a 2011 stanford word of " 20% at best"
thats still
wat 10KG of material for 250W "?
the tesla battery pack is like 1000lbs aint it ?
im sure they could spair an extra like 50kg for a tricke charge option / battery optimizer topper upper offer

or 100kg for the rough = of a 110v 20 AMP usa socket

so
Cost, pure: $100 per 100g
and 1000g = 1Kg correct ?

kilo is a thousand if i recall
a thousand bucks per kiloogram

so 10 thousand smackeroos for 250 watts of FOREVER output (28 yearshalflife)
or $100K for a wall socket 2500WATTS

totally ONE OFF creation pricing

but at the start the roadster was a one off concept

11

ok lets look at a different option,

what is the LOWEST amount of POWER required to drive that car like JUST ROLLING 1-2-3 MPH ??

maybe use this as some type of im screwed emergency power thing

and then as a battery tender when not in direct use

hell 250 watts would keep that bigass touchscreen going and charge your phones and shit no problemo
i mean, shit, my 5.1ch stereo pc and tv are sucking down 226 watts at teh moment

12

W = F * s = m * a * s = m * (v / t) * s

Then you just need to put in the values.
W = work (in Joule = Newton Meters)
F = Force (in N)
s = distance in meter
v = velocity in m/s
t = time in seconds

You can figure out the conversion from Joule to W yourself ;)

13

cute,
i meant whats the lowest amount of electrical energy in watts that would need to be provided to roll the car in an emergency situation to get it to a type of charger
if i recall the system in teslas run at like 400v ?

14

For that you need to work out the torque to keep the car moving. From there you can calculate the mechanical power the motor needs to output and that is proportional to the electrical power required.

1 Like