Nuclear-powered battery could eliminate need for recharging

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 583   +13
Staff
Forward-looking: As rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries power everything from smartphones to electric vehicles, their limitations are becoming increasingly evident. Frequent recharging and environmental concerns related to lithium mining and battery disposal have prompted researchers to seek alternatives.

A team led by Su-Il In, a professor at South Korea's Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology, is developing an innovative solution: radiocarbon-powered nuclear batteries that could last for decades without needing a recharge. Professor In presented his team's findings at the American Chemical Society's Spring 2025 meeting, held March 23 – 27. The conference featured approximately 12,000 presentations on scientific advancements.

The research addresses the growing demand for durable and sustainable power sources, as connected devices, data centers, and advanced technologies continue to push the capabilities of Li-ion batteries to their limits. "The performance of Li-ion batteries is almost saturated," In said, explaining why his team turned to nuclear batteries as an alternative.

Radiocarbon offers several advantages over other radioactive materials: it is inexpensive, readily available as a by-product of nuclear power plants, and easy to recycle. Most importantly, it degrades extraordinarily slowly, with a half-life of 5,730 years.

Nuclear batteries generate electricity by harnessing high-energy particles emitted during the radioactive decay of certain materials. Unlike conventional nuclear energy sources such as uranium or plutonium – which emit harmful gamma rays – In's design uses carbon-14, a radioactive isotope known as radiocarbon.

Radiocarbon emits only beta particles, which are less harmful and can be safely contained with a thin sheet of aluminum. This makes betavoltaic batteries, which convert beta radiation into electricity, a promising candidate for compact and safe energy solutions. Radiocarbon offers several advantages over other radioactive materials: it is inexpensive, readily available as a by-product of nuclear power plants, and easy to recycle. Most importantly, it degrades extraordinarily slowly, with a half-life of 5,730 years.

This means a radiocarbon-powered battery could theoretically provide power for thousands of years without needing replacement. "I decided to use a radioactive isotope of carbon because it generates only beta rays," said In.

The team's prototype betavoltaic battery incorporates advanced materials to maximize energy conversion efficiency – a critical challenge in nuclear battery design. At the heart of the battery is a titanium dioxide-based semiconductor commonly used in solar cells.

This material was treated with a ruthenium-based dye and strengthened with citric acid to create a highly sensitive structure capable of efficiently converting beta radiation into electricity.

Beta particles emitted by radiocarbon strike the ruthenium-based dye on the semiconductor, triggering a cascade of electron transfer reactions known as an "electron avalanche." These reactions generate electricity, which the titanium dioxide layer collects and passes through an external circuit. This process is central to the battery's ability to produce usable power.

A key factor in In's design was placing radiocarbon in both the anode and cathode of the battery – a departure from previous designs that used radiocarbon exclusively on one electrode. This dual-site configuration increased the generation of beta particles while minimizing energy loss caused by the distance between electrodes.

The results were striking: testing revealed that this approach boosted the battery's energy conversion efficiency from 0.48 percent in earlier designs to 2.86 percent in the new prototype – a nearly sixfold improvement.

Despite this progress, radiocarbon batteries still lag behind Li-ion batteries in terms of power output. Li-ion batteries typically achieve energy conversion efficiencies of around 90 percent. However, what these nuclear batteries lack in immediate performance, they make up for in longevity and reliability. Their ability to function for decades without recharging opens up new possibilities across various industries.

For instance, pacemakers powered by radiocarbon batteries could last a patient's entire lifetime, eliminating the need for risky surgical replacements. Other potential applications include powering remote sensors in harsh environments, satellites that require long-term energy solutions in space, and even drones or self-driving vehicles where frequent recharging is impractical.

In acknowledges that further optimization is needed to enhance the performance of these nuclear batteries. Efforts are underway to refine the shape of beta-ray emitters and develop more efficient absorbers to increase power generation. Nevertheless, he remains optimistic about their potential impact. "We can put safe nuclear energy into devices the size of a finger," he said, envisioning a future where nuclear energy is no longer confined to large power plants but integrated into everyday technology.

The research was funded by Korea's National Research Foundation and supported by the Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology Research and Development Program under Korea's Ministry of Science and ICT.

Permalink to story:

 
This was toyed with almost 30 years ago in the US. Environmentalists screamed bloody murder so we never got our Fallout future.
Look up Betacel. These were invented in the 1970s and used in pacemakers for a while. Same technology but using a different radioactive material.

Today, there's City Labs and their NanoTritium batteries. Once again, these are a betavoltaic device, so same technology but using Tritium as the radioactive material.

So the technology is already out there today.
 
The article starts "As rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries power everything from smartphones to electric vehicles, their limitations are becoming increasingly evident".

This implies the betavoltaic cell may be of use in such cases. The next line says, "Betavoltaic technology could power pacemakers, satellites, and more".

The device unveiled in 2024 had an output of 100 microwatts. While useful in certain situations, unless ramped up by many orders of magnitude it's going to be of no use in a smartphone, even less in an EV and I suspect also in a satellite. You'd need 3 thousand million of them to power my electric car under full acceleration.
 
Atomic batteries to power!
Turbines to speed!


643897d01a99fa665b2c5f0b7d3baa2e--batman-tv-series-batman-.jpg
 
Look up Betacel. These were invented in the 1970s and used in pacemakers for a while. Same technology but using a different radioactive material.

Today, there's City Labs and their NanoTritium batteries. Once again, these are a betavoltaic device, so same technology but using Tritium as the radioactive material.

So the technology is already out there today.


Never get between pyscho and a good conspiracy beat up. His hatred of any one that tries to do something positive is legendary. Facts will not get in the way of hysteria.
 
Nuclear has always gotten a bad rap as people think Chernobyl every time anyone proposes a power plant… thing is, it’s way better than anything else!
It gets interesting when looking at the number of deaths per power source. From ourworldindata.org, deaths per terawatt-hour:
Brown coal 32.72
Coal 24.62
Oil 18.43
Biomass 4.63
Gas 2.82
Hydropower 1.30
Wind 0.04
Nuclear 0.03
Solar 0.02

Yep, somehow wind energy is more dangerous than Nuclear.
It's a shame Chernobyl has given nuclear such a bad rep, an old flawed design where multiple warnings were ignored to create the perfect conditions for a disaster. A modern reactor wouldn't have any of those issues and France is doing interesting things trying to recycle nuclear waste greatly reducing the amount of waste and the half life of it.
It's a bit like flying, thanks to a few disasters and it making for an exciting plot point in (fictional) media people are irrationally scared of it whilst pretty much everything else in your daily life is more dangerous.

---

Back on the main topic, sounds like an interesting area of research. Hopefully the efficiency can be boosted to a point where it can be useful for other applications.
 
A modern reactor wouldn't have any of those issues and France is doing interesting things trying to recycle nuclear waste greatly reducing the amount of waste and the half life of it.
Yes, things change. Unfortunately, one of the things that has changed recently is the possibility of war and terrorism. Nuclear power plants make excellent targets in both cases.
 
Wahoo! It’s been several days since the last TechSpot future battery tech nonsense article. Gimme a ring in a decade when this sees the light of day… if ever…

If only there were some organization that could provide loans to promising startups to help subsidize the cost of bringing a technology to market, in order to make it price competitive to either succeed or fail on its merits.

But since such an organization does not exist, this likely dies in the US until the patents expire and some other country invests in it 20 or so years down the line.
 
This feels like one of those ‘future tech’ ideas that actually makes sense — not just because it’s cool, but because there’s a clear niche for it. You don’t need high output for something like a pacemaker or a remote sensor, but decades of battery life without maintenance? That’s a game changer.
 
Nuclear Power Plants are ok in countries in the middle east central Europe but U.S. no way no how. Actually Nuclear power will likely never be used to make a battery. The concept of Nuclear reactions generating electricity in it's current form which is used in power plants does not suggest this technology has any way of working like a battery.
 
Nuclear Power Plants are ok in countries in the middle east central Europe but U.S. no way no how. Actually Nuclear power will likely never be used to make a battery. The concept of Nuclear reactions generating electricity in it's current form which is used in power plants does not suggest this technology has any way of working like a battery.
Except it has and does…

 
Except it has and does…

This is another example of buzzwords being used to hype products, using nuclear here for a coin sized battery sounds great but use your head a nuclear power setup in a space the size of a coin. This is totally different than how nuclear plants sustain electrical grids. Not sure we will ever see this coin sized battery live up to it's claims either.
 
This is another example of buzzwords being used to hype products, using nuclear here for a coin sized battery sounds great but use your head a nuclear power setup in a space the size of a coin. This is totally different than how nuclear plants sustain electrical grids. Not sure we will ever see this coin sized battery live up to it's claims either.
Radioactive decay (nuclear decay) is part of nuclear physics, so using the term nuclear to explain how power is generated by the battery fits the definition.

No, it's not generating power by nuclear fusion or fission, which you would be more familiar with using the term for to describe nuclear power, but rather by betavoltaics.
 
Radioactive decay (nuclear decay) is part of nuclear physics, so using the term nuclear to explain how power is generated by the battery fits the definition.

No, it's not generating power by nuclear fusion or fission, which you would be more familiar with using the term for to describe nuclear power, but rather by betavoltaics.
The point I was making is, it is not nuclear power in any sense of the known 'nuclear' association term. All materials have a decay path, especially batteries. I don't see how that is anything new which would justify the use of the word 'nuclear'. Should have just used 'betavoltaics' if that is what is used here as you have said.
 
Back