News Chinese-developed nuclear battery has a 50-year lifespan — Betavolt BV100 built with Nickel-63 isotope and diamond semiconductor material

[The Historical Fidelity]

If you're going to use quotes could you provide a source for those quotes?

Oh forgive me. These are excerpts from the book “The Plutonium Files” by Eileen Welsome.

If you have access to a university library, they may be able to request a copy from the Stanford Library

 

[Tanakoi]

Current Pu-238 production is ~400 grams per year, a far cry from historical production through military breeder reactors

Current production rates are set to current demand rates. You implied that Pu-238 is too scarce to be economically viable, and capable only of being produced in quantity in "military breeder reactors". Both are false. Furthermore, current US production is (as of FY 2024) expanding to 1500 g/yr.

Pu-238 production has a ~1% yield via the Np-237 neutron bombardment method

Oops! It's actually closer to 15%. See the paper: "Plutonium-238 Production Program Results, Implications, and Projections from Irradiation and Examination of Initial NpO2 Test Targets for Improved Production"

Details matter and I am considered a subject matter expert in this case. Not only do I deal with radioactive isotopes in my work but I am a member of the ACS technical division in Nuclear chemistry and technology.

"Appeal to Authority" fallacy noted. I've given statements by actual experts that your statements are wrong: Pu-powered pacemakers were never "recalled for exposure concerns".

LWR spent fuel Pu-238 purification is not considered cost effective.

Certainly it is. We were doing it in a cost-effective manner from the 1960s until President Carter ended Pu reprocessing in 1977. Of course, the neptunium route is cheaper still, as you can get all the Np-237 you wish by the (far easier) reprocessing of spent uranium instead.

 

[Tanakoi]

Yes but you are not taking into account the fact that these Ni-63 atoms will be in an ionized state.... This can bring some Ni-63 atoms within the battery to decay within a month and a half instead of adhering to its “calculated or inferred half-life”

Err, what? Yes, one can alter the half-life of a radionuclide by deformation or excitation of the electron shells -- but no such experiment ever performed has EVER altered that "calculated or inferred" period by even 1%, much less the 1000x faster rate you claim.

Oh forgive me. These are excerpts from the book “The Plutonium Files” by Eileen Welsome.

Welsom is a sensationalistic author, not a researcher. Do you have any scientific references?

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Current production rates are set to current demand rates. You implied that Pu-238 is too scarce to be economically viable, and capable only of being produced in quantity in "military breeder reactors". Both are false.


Oops! It's actually closer to 15%. See the paper: "Plutonium-238 Production Program Results, Implications, and Projections from Irradiation and Examination of Initial NpO2 Test Targets for Improved Production"


"Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy noted. I've given statements by actual experts that your statements are wrong: Pu-powered pacemakers were never "recalled for exposure concerns".


Of course it is. We were doing it in a cost-effective manner from the 1960s until President Carter ended Pu reprocessing in 1977.

Wrong wrong and wrong.

15% is the efficacy of bombarding Np-237 with neutrons due to Np-237’s small neutron cross-section. ~1% is the efficacy of creating the Np-237 that is then used to create Pu-238. 100kg of reactor fuel exposed to reactor neutron flux for 3 years yields 700 grams of Np-237, and of that 700 grams, only 105 grams is successfully transformed into Pu-238. So Np-237 is very much the rate limiting step in this endeavor.

You really must read and understand what I write before you accuse me of saying things I never did. I never said Pu-238 pacemakers were recalled, I said the Pu within the pacemakers are classified as a proliferation risk and as a public exposure risk if they are removed from the patient and it’s shielding compromised thus Los Alamos and Oak Ridge’s “Off-Site Recovery Project” will be notified of a deceased person having one and a recovery team will be dispatched.

It’s really not hard to understand, and “appeal to authority” logical fallacy is not the case here, I know what I am talking about and am trained to properly interpret the data and information within this field. You are not and throwing experts around at the problem without the actual know how to properly interpret their findings is a good way to get way over your head fast.

And finally, who said Pu-238 production was cost-effective in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s? No one….those were different times and money was no object when it came to beating the Soviets. Nowadays, with NASA’s budget cut significantly, the breeder reactors, the gaseous diffusion and hot labs all shut down, the available methods are neither cost-effective or viable for scaled production like we saw in the past. Yes we are improving our ability to make Pu-238 again, but it is with a fraction of the historical budget, reliance on small scale research reactors such as Oak Ridge’s HFIR, and a lower priority compared to the past.

 

[Tanakoi]

It was soon found that plutonium was being excreted at a very slow rate....

Fearmongering that in no way relates to the topic. Pacemakers were not "excreting" Pu-238. Your reference involves medical test subjects being intentionally fed plutonium.

the American College of Radiology set a lifetime hard-cutoff of 10,000 chest x-rays.

These pacemakers gave a dose-equivalent of one chest x-ray per year. Not many people live 10,000 years, at least where I'm from.

Plus if these devices are not dangerous, then why did Los Alamos identify these pacemakers as a public source danger requiring recovery?

I'm glad you asked. Because, as Los Alamos itself stated, they're uneasy about large quantities of unlicensed radionuclides being in public hands. Why specifically? Because of the fearmongering we see in this thread: a so-called "dirty bomb" -- which generates a million times as much public hysteria as it does actual danger -- could be constructed, were someone able to acquire a few hundred of these pacemakers.

 

[Deleted member 2969713]

Ah, I do love watching science-types argue with each other. I'm like a bemused novice spectactor of a sport who has no idea what's going on but likes it anyway.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Err, what? Yes, one can alter the half-life of a radionuclide by deformation or excitation of the electron shells -- but no such experiment ever performed has EVER altered that "calculated or inferred" period by even 1%, much less the 1000x faster rate you claim.


Welsom is a sensationalistic author, not a researcher. Do you have any scientific references?

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2164
Here you go, peer reviewed proof that a completely stable isotope rapidly decayed in 47 days after ionization.

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.5190
Here we see an isotope that has a half-life of 42 Giga-years drop to 32.9 years in its fully ionized state.

Detailed intimate knowledge of the topic is what an expert makes, and much of this is via information from industry journals, etc. not in the public domain.

 

[Byrb]

Ah, I do love watching science-types argue with each other. I'm like a bemused novice spectactor of a sport who has no idea what's going on but likes it anyway.

Me too, I'm reading this looking like:

 

[bit_user]

Ah, I do love watching science-types argue with each other. I'm like a bemused novice spectactor of a sport who has no idea what's going on but likes it anyway.

It's sometimes said of a person that they "know enough to be dangerous". However, non-experts often suffer from an inability to spot or appreciate gaps in their knowledge ("you don't know what you don't know"). Hence, the dilettante is well advised to take an extra heaping of humility. Otherwise, they can easily fall prey to the Dunning–Kruger effect.

​

If you think you're dealing with someone who might know more than you, I've found it deescalates the situation greatly if you try asking questions, instead of making assertions. That lowers the stakes of being wrong, which removes a lot of ego from the exchange.

 

[Deleted member 2969713]

Hence, the dilettante is well advised to take an extra heaping of humility.

Ooh, a new word I can use. I don't encounter those very often. Probably won't remember that one though.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Fearmongering that in no way relates to the topic. Pacemakers were not "excreting" Pu-238. Your reference involves medical test subjects being intentionally fed plutonium.


These pacemakers gave a dose-equivalent of one chest x-ray per year. Not many people live 10,000 years, at least where I'm from.


I'm glad you asked. Because, as Los Alamos itself stated, they're uneasy about large quantities of unlicensed radionuclides being in public hands. Why specifically? Because of the fearmongering we see in this thread: a so-called "dirty bomb" -- which generates a million times as much public hysteria as it does actual danger -- could be constructed, were someone able to acquire a few hundred of these pacemakers.

Yes, I was demonstrating the effects of Pu-238 if containment fails in the pacemaker. 137 patients is no where near the minimum n needed to rule out that these devices were safe from leaking high energy alpha emitters into the body.

And wrong, the generally accepted dose rate for the radiation emitted from these pacemakers is 5-15 millirem per hour which is 8,760 yearly X-rays. 5-15 millirem per hour to the surrounding tissue in proximity to the device is completely different from whole body dose equivalence.

 

[Gururu]

When two nuclear physicists cant agree on the safety of a nuclear technology, I think its better to err on the side of caution.

 

[Tanakoi]

Wrong wrong and wrong.

100kg of reactor fuel exposed to reactor neutron flux for 3 years yields 700 grams of Np-237...Np-237 is very much the rate limiting step

A single 1GW PWR produces about 25 tons of spent fuel each year, of which 10-12kg is Np-237. We have approximately 400GW of such reactors around the world, meaning total global production -- should we choose to demand it -- would be on the order of 4000 kg. More than enough.

I know what I am talking about and am trained to properly interpret the data and information within this field. You are not

I'm not going to flex credentials, but I was working with Hilbert Spaces and Pauli Matrices many decades ago. Backgrounds aren't relevant; only facts are. You've already retracted the implication that plutonium pacemakers were dangerous, and now state they were simply a 'proliferation risk'. Good. As for the claim that "ionization effects" reduce the half-life of Ni-63 to a month, that's absurd. Actually, your precise statement was worse: "...can cause some of the atoms to decay within a mere month and a half", a seemingly failure to understand that "half-life" doesn't imply all the atoms disintegrate simultaneously. In ANY large sample of a radionuclide with a long half-life -- even a half-life of thousands or millions of years -- you'll see a certain percentage disintegrate quickly.

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2164
Here you go, peer reviewed proof that a completely stable isotope rapidly decayed in 47 days after ionization.

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.5190
Here we see an isotope that has a half-life of 42 Giga-years drop to 32.9 years in its fully ionized state.

Err, you are badly misunderstanding those papers if you feel they're relevant. They're not referring to ordinary beta decay, but rather bound-state decay. The phrase "Bound-state β− decay was observed for the first time" should have been your clue. Here's another clue, from paper #2:

"...The situation changes, when going from terrestrial conditions to a high temperature regime in stellar interiors where atoms are highly ionized and bb decay into deeply bound orbits becomes possible...."

In this particular experiment, ions were accelerated relativistically in a high-power synchrotron to 347A MeV, an energy equivalent to the interior of a main-sequence star. Claiming this is relevant to the ordinary beta-decay of Ni-63 in a table-top battery is absurd.

 

[eric79xxl]

Is that why they recommend special precautions for working with it. And oh geez can’t be detected with a counter…. This sounds like an environmental disaster waiting to happen, since we breathe and eat almost anything we play with.

call phones are good with ketchup, but smart watch goes better with soy sauce.

 

[ex_bubblehead]

All right, let's all just simmer down and get back to the actual topic of this thread.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

When two nuclear physicists cant agree on the safety of a nuclear technology, I think its better to err on the side of caution.

To be fair, Pu-238 is a completely different beast to Nickel-63. I argue that Nickel-63 energetic electron ejection is not something that should be permitted, but the people saying it’s relatively harmless are not wrong. It all depends on the level of risk that each of us is willing to take. Personally, with the level of nuclear safety I am exposed to in my field, I am particularly sensitive to the idea of unregulated release of any synthetic unstable radio-isotope into the general public’s hands no matter how well shielded or how low the chances of gene damage or mutation from Nickel-63’s low energy emissions (comparatively speaking) may be. History is filled with people getting their hands on radio-isotopes without knowing what they have and then endanger their own life, their families, and innocent passerby’s by performing stupid acts.

A good entertaining way to learn of said history is through the YouTube channel “Plainly Difficult”
Like this one about a radiotherapy machine that was anonymously sent to a scrap yard once the Radio-isotope within no longer emitted the energy needed to treat cancer:

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hxktLtVEH7U


Or this video from “Kyle Hill” about a group of Russians finding an expired radio-isotope thermoelectric generator in the forest and saw that it melted the snow so they slept next to it to keep warm:

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GYg7Y_W7s

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

All right, let's all just simmer down and get back to the actual topic of this thread.

My Apologies, I’m snowed in and can’t go to work so this has been my outlet for the day haha.

 

[Byrb]

To be fair, Pu-238 is a completely different beast to Nickel-63. I argue that Nickel-63 energetic electron ejection is not something that should be permitted, but the people saying it’s relatively harmless are not wrong. It all depends on the level of risk that each of us is willing to take. Personally, with the level of nuclear safety I am exposed to in my field, I am particularly sensitive to the idea of unregulated release of any synthetic unstable radio-isotope into the general public’s hands no matter how well shielded or how low the chances of gene damage or mutation from Nickel-63’s low energy emissions (comparatively speaking) may be. History is filled with people getting their hands on radio-isotopes without knowing what they have and then endanger their own life, their families, and innocent passerby’s by performing stupid acts.

A good entertaining way to learn of said history is through the YouTube channel “Plainly Difficult”
Like this one about a radiotherapy machine that was anonymously sent to a scrap yard once the Radio-isotope within no longer emitted the energy needed to treat cancer:

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hxktLtVEH7U


Or this video from “Kyle Hill” about a group of Russians finding an expired radio-isotope thermoelectric generator in the forest and saw that it melted the snow so they slept next to it to keep warm:

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GYg7Y_W7s

Hey I watch both these guys!

My Apologies, I’m snowed in and can’t go to work so this has been my outlet for the day haha.

I've been reading this procrastinating on writing a lengthy structural integrity report(on my time off) ;-(

 

[Tanakoi]

let's all just simmer down and get back to the actual topic of this thread.

I hope the safety of nuclear batteries in general is close enough to on-topic. If not, please advise and I will desist.

137 patients is no where near the minimum n needed to rule out that these devices were safe from leaking high energy alpha emitters into the body.

To some, no figure will ever be "safe enough". Safety is a relative quantity, not an absolute. Pu pacemakers were far safer than having open-heart surgery every few years to replace the batteries.

I am particularly sensitive to the idea of unregulated release of any synthetic unstable radio-isotope into the general public’s hands no matter how well shielded or how low the chances of gene damage or mutation may be.

As I stated: regardless of how safe or effective it is: you oppose it.

When two nuclear physicists cant agree on the safety of a nuclear technology, I think its better to err on the side of caution.

Actually, it's one physicist (non-nuclear), and one (I suspect) nuclear medicine technician.

 

[pymofnantucket]

I visited what used to be called a "State Key Laboratory" in China about 10 years ago that was developing this exact technology. They told me it would be used for satellites. The PI was a Chinese professor educated in the US and still collaborating with them. They seemed to have almost no concern about secrecy. So apparently they believed the technology was readily understood, and the opportunity revolved around improving the fabrication.

I also saw at that time in the same lab remarkably advanced femtosecond lasers working on impressive ideas. The funding in these labs in those days was impressive.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

A single 1GW PWR produces about 25 tons of spent fuel each year, of which 10-12kg is Np-237. We have approximately 400GW of such reactors around the world, meaning total global production -- should we choose to demand it -- would be on the order of 4000 kg. More than enough.


I'm not going to flex credentials, but I was working with Hilbert Spaces and Pauli Matrices many decades ago. Backgrounds aren't relevant; only facts are. You've already retracted the implication that plutonium pacemakers were dangerous, and now state they were simply a 'proliferation risk'. Good. As for the claim that "ionization effects" reduce the half-life of Ni-63 to a month, that's absurd. Actually, your precise statement was worse: "...can cause some of the atoms to decay within a mere month and a half", a seemingly failure to understand that "half-life" doesn't imply all the atoms disintegrate simultaneously. In ANY large sample of a radionuclide with a long half-life -- even a half-life of thousands or millions of years -- you'll see a certain percentage disintegrate quickly.


Err, you are badly misunderstanding those papers if you feel they're relevant. They're not referring to ordinary beta decay, but rather bound-state decay. The phrase "Bound-state β− decay was observed for the first time" should have been your clue. Here's another clue, from paper #2:

"...The situation changes, when going from terrestrial conditions to a high temperature regime in stellar interiors where atoms are highly ionized and bb decay into deeply bound orbits becomes possible...."

In this particular experiment, ions were accelerated relativistically in a high-power synchrotron to 347A MeV, an energy equivalent to the interior of a main-sequence star. Claiming this is relevant to the ordinary beta-decay of Ni-63 in a table-top battery is absurd.

Observation yes, but this phenomena was predicted back in 1947 and includes normal isotopes experiencing ionization mediated decays that do not obey the isotopes “estimated half-life”. And yes, cyclotrons and particle accelerators are used to expedite the occurrence of bound state beta decay because, just like how Rting’s is simulating 3 years of OLED usage in months, no one is going to wait to see if a 42 billion year half-life is shortened to 33 years, they are going to force the decay and use the available data to calculate the half-life of the ionized isotope.

You can argue with me all day but you demonstrate a clear lack in understanding how multiple facets of nuclear chemistry work. Anyway, the moderators have asked us to stop and I think that is what we should do.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

I hope the safety of nuclear batteries in general is close enough to on-topic. If not, please advise and I will desist.


To some, no figure will ever be "safe enough". Safety is a relative quantity, not an absolute. Pu pacemakers were far safer than having open-heart surgery every few years to replace the batteries.


As I stated: regardless of how safe or effective it is: you oppose it.


Actually, it's one physicist (non-nuclear), and one (I suspect) nuclear medicine technician.

General physicist, meet the part-owner of a well respected cancer treatment company and head of R&D

 

[Tanakoi]

For those leery of scary-sounding "nuclear batteries", I'd like to point out some important facts. The average human background dose is generally around 600 mrem/year. But simply moving from a low-altitude city like Miami to mile-high Denver will increase your annual dose from around 350mrem to 1,500+ mrem. I've seen public panic result over a trace exposure to a millirem or two -- but does anyone call a move to Denver a huge radiation risk? And Denver is hardly the worst: there are places in Brazil and India -- populated for centuries -- where background doses run 4,000+ mrem/year. In Ramsar, Iran, a background dose can be as high as 26,000 mrem/year -- yet studies on those living there fail to show chromosomal damage or higher-than-normal cancer rates.

From studies on the Japanese population around Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we know that a one-time immediate dose of 40,000 mrem raises your lifetime cancer risk by approximately 2%. How much is the risk raised if you receive that dose over several years? No one knows for sure, but it indisputably less, perhaps far, far less. Still, we use the so-called "linear exposure model" as a worst-case scenario, despite knowing it doesn't correspond whatsoever with reality.

 

[Sippincider]

Do they mention, which recyling bin to use on disposal?

As much as I want to say "The one going back to China", who are we kidding.

These batteries will get mixed into the waste stream, finding their way into landfills and incinerators with everything else. So hopefully the entire cycle is figured out first.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

For those leery of scary-sounding "nuclear batteries", I'd like to point out some important facts. The average human background dose is generally around 600 mrem/year. But simply moving from a low-altitude city like Miami to mile-high Denver will increase your annual dose from around 350mrem to 1,500+ mrem. I've seen public panic result over a trace exposure to a millirem or two -- but does anyone call a move to Denver a huge radiation risk? And Denver is hardly the worst: there are places in Brazil and India -- populated for centuries -- where background doses run 4,000+ mrem/year. In Ramsar, Iran, a background dose can be as high as 26,000 mrem/year -- yet studies on those living there fail to show chromosomal damage or higher-than-normal cancer rates.

From studies on the Japanese population around Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we know that a one-time immediate dose of 40,000 mrem raises your lifetime cancer risk by approximately 2%. How much is the risk raised if you receive that dose over several years? No one knows for sure, but it indisputably less, perhaps far, far less. Still, we use the so-called "linear exposure model" as a worst-case scenario, despite knowing it doesn't correspond whatsoever with reality.

I do not agree with your arguments in this thread (and you mine) and obviously this is leading no where. Our time can surely be applied to better things so let’s close this debate and let the thread get back on track.