A tiny radioactive battery could keep your future phone running for 50 years::A glowing horizon for phones

  • @Papanca@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    906 months ago

    And now for 50 years worth of security updates for a phone like that. Not to mention what people might do with throwing a phone in the trash or something

    • andrew
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’d take it if it was a reasonable price, like 1k, and if I could just swap it into new phones every time I upgraded.

      The problem is, power requirements tend to increase as computation power increases. And no doubt battery tech will improve in those 50 years.

      • Toes♀
        link
        fedilink
        English
        126 months ago

        They already sell phones over 1k that are expected to last ~4 years. You’ll need to tag another zero or two to that price to incentivize manufacturers.

        • Justin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          16 months ago

          They could do it to gain market share.

      • @AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -2
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        So what if power requirements increase. It could quadruple and now my battery will only last twelve years? There are plenty of other things that will start failing before then.

        • @ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          76 months ago

          I don’t know about this particular tech, but you can’t really control the speed of radioactive decay very easily. It’s possible they’re doing something, but if they’re just collecting the energy then there’s nothing you can do to get more energy in exchange for a shorter life

          • @AbidanYre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            56 months ago

            That’s fair.

            Isn’t decay exponential though? So there would likely be some extra power being wasted at the beginning? Until it couldn’t supply however much is needed today? Or is that timeline long enough that 50 years is basically nothing?

            • @godzillabacter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              56 months ago

              It depends on the half life of the element in question. The most comparable concrete thing we can compare this to with real numbers because we know it works is an RTG. RTGs are solid-state generators, but people could colloquially refer to them as “batteries” and not be terribly wrong. They take a quantity of a radioactive material and allow it to decay, using the heat given off to establish a thermal gradient which is then converted to electricity via thermocouples. Most of these are “fueled” with Pu-238 (at least the ones for spacecraft), which has a half life of 87.7 years. That means in 87.7 years, if you started with 4kg of Pu when you built it, you’d have only 2kg of Plutonium left. If the Pu decayed only into stable isotopes (it doesn’t) then your radioactive emissions/decay would also be exactly halved at this time. If the electrical system is perfectly efficient this would also halve the electrical power produced.

              I provide this all as background because to answer your question you have to know three key factors about the device to determine the lifetime of the battery. The half-life of the isotope used, the minimum electrical requirements of the device you’re powering, and the amount of radioactive material in the initial battery. The battery’s lifetime is determined by when decay will decrease the ongoing energy output below the minimum current and voltage requirements needed by the battery. The longer the half life of the isotope, the slower this decrease is and the less initial overpowering that is required.

              Ex. If you use an isotope with a 12.5 year half life for a “50-year” battery, you would need to start with 8 times the material needed for your minimum power output requirements. If you use an isotope with a 200 year half life, you only need 19% more starting mass than you minimum requirement. The first battery will produce 8x the power at the very beginning, while the second will only produce 18% more.

    • Obinice
      link
      fedilink
      English
      176 months ago

      The EU are going to mandate removable batteries in phones, so I don’t see any reason you can’t take a standardised battery that lasts decades and swap it into your next phone, if they’re all designed properly with compatibility with this miracle battery in mind :-D

      • @shasta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        66 months ago

        Perfect. Then they’ll sell the battery separately and it’ll cost $5000

        • @Nindelofocho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          26 months ago

          A battery that last several years and can be used in a plethora of devices would be reasonably expensive yes. $5000 is a lot but maybe $500 is more reasonable for something like that?

      • @Papanca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        Exactly; if Usually, it takes years, if not decades, before laws and regulations are actually in place

    • @Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      26 months ago

      I’m not so optimistic.

      When ever we discover a new, much better power source, the cartel who is going to lose a shitton of business go on a smear campaign. Look at solar power. Look at electric cars. Hell, look at hemp.

      Companies would bury this so fast, and this tech would be a niche thing.

    • @smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16 months ago

      No. Document the device for PC-like lifetime software support from first and third party. Long security update support for phones, great, but we still have a stupid thing when people buy whole new phone for little software feature.