Revolutionary 30 Year laptop Battery

Betavoltaic Battery

Update: Based on reader’s feedback and comments below, it has come to my attention that there are some inaccuracies within this post. The information was taken from another source (mentioned), but do accept my apologies.

Imagine watching movies on your laptop throughout an entire long distance flight and when stepping off the plane, your battery still has enough power to last at least an additional 29 years and 364 days. Basically, picture your laptop battery lasting 30 years without a single charge. Is this a new technology that will revolutionize our lives?

According to recent Next Energy News, the U.S Air Force Research Laboratory has invented Betavoltaic power cells that would do just that.

Betavoltaic? is that nuclear? Quick answer: NO. These are energy currents honed inside of a battery. The Betavoltaic batteries are an ode to Albert Einstein’s theory of E=MC2, simply a hugely concentrated source of energy. It is like something taken out of a Sci-Fi movie. These batteries do not generate radioactive and other hazardous waste, for they do not produce energy by Fission/Fusion or chemically. Actually, for environmentalists, when the batteries run out of power, they are completely non-toxic. Furthermore, these should be small and thin, and hopefully will be out in 2-3 years.

For scientific explanation as to how the batteries last for such a long periods see here. For additional information of Betavoltaic Technology for you science buffs, see here.

12 thoughts on “Revolutionary 30 Year laptop Battery

  1. Pingback: Computer Maintenance Tips

  2. Joal.

    @Eran
    I’m not sure that the basic technology isn’t a hoax – it isn’t that much of a leap to come up with a device that can capture beta particles in an electronic circuit.
    I AM highly skeptical that any company would want to release this as a product used in people’s laps, and after following some of the links mentioned in the comments – I am VERY skeptical of how the radioactive source is to be produced – “plasma bottle”? “Mg/Be fusion”?
    Top scientists can just about get boron and hydrogen to fuse in well-funded research labs at detectable yields. To give your readers an idea of the unlikelihood of a commercial high yield Mg/Be fusion, beryllium is a little lighter than boron (3/5), but magnesium is over twice the mass.
    The heavier the masses, the more positively charged protons in the nuclei, the faster you need to hurl the nuclei together to get them to stick before they repel each other. Also, the heavier the masses, the more energy is required to accelerate the nuclei to the required energies.
    We’d be talking about a 4-8-fold difficulty in achieving Mg/Be fusion over the best that scientists can do, and we’re to believe they can do it efficiently enough that they can build consumer electronics out of it. o-O

    Reply
  3. Eran Abramson.

    @Joal: Thank you again for your explanation. I have added an update in the post referring to your comments.

    Do you think it may be a hoax such as Damian mentioned?

    @Damian: It is odd that it isn’t on the front pages. If we find out or are informed it is truly a hoax, we will update the post.

    @Reality Handbook: Thank you for sharing the link.

    Reply
  4. damian.

    um, i think this is a hoax. it isn’t mentioned at all on the airforce research laboratory’s website cited in the above article’s link for more info. You’d think that such a break-through would be on the front page, if not in the website itself. Where did this article get its information? i know we all want solutions to energy problems, but i just don’t think this is real. here is the website for the AFRL:
    http://www.wpafb.af.mil/AFRL/

    Reply
  5. Joal.

    I’ve seen this article a few times, and the bits where it states that the process doesn’t involve nuclear fusion/fission is a little disambiguous. (There are several nuclear reactions that AREN’T fusion/fission.)
    The bit where is states that this product is not nuclear is a flat-out lie.

    From the bounce, it IS clear that this process uses a radioactive source – (beta radiation consists of very high energy electrons being ejected from the nucleus).

    The original article author has also been very sneaky by stating that it doesn’t produce any “radioactive waste” – note that the article doesn’t state that it does/doesn’t produce radiation.

    Stating that the process doesn’t use fusion or fission is kind of like saying that a paint brand doesn’t contain arsenic or lead – still doesn’t mean that paint isn’t toxic.

    As a male, I’d want a LOT of assurance about the safety of this product before I started putting a radioactive source on my lap for the next 30 years. 🙂

    Reply
  6. Eran Abramson.

    Hey Dan, Joel, and Zmoney thank you for your feedback.
    @Dan: So true. Having these kind of batteries in our every day portable electronics would be so great. It is so annoying to take a charger and extra batteries when we travel.
    Will the Air Force sell it?…who knows?
    @Joel: Thank you the explanation, you definitely know this information better than I do. As much as the original source mentioned that the battery is safe, I really don’t think anyone should even attempt to open, crack, or break it.
    @Zmoney: Yeah, it’s an awesome source of power – extremely practical.

    Reply
  7. Joel.

    This article is just clueless gushing. Of _course_ the process is nuclear: It is based on the decay of radioactive isotopes that give off electrons in the process. True, when the battery has reached its end of life (which is _much_ longer than 30 years; 30 years is merely when its energy output has declined to a level that renders it useless), it will be harmless, but in the meanwhile it contains some pretty nasty stuff if you happen to crack one open.

    Reply
  8. Dan.

    Wow… that’s what I call news! at last! but taking it further from the first commment if this is somekind of a new use or new way to do energy why use batteries at home? why not divert energy producers to this kind of thing?

    Anyhow, I think this is so cool! i’ve had it with recharging or traveling with an additional battery!

    Guess it’ll cost a lot, ha? if it’s the army’s will they sell it?

    Reply
  9. Eran Abramson.

    Hey Justin thanks for the comment.

    That would really be great if these will be found in our other products. Unfortunately we do not know their price, for they will be out (hopefully) in a few years.

    Reply
  10. Justin (pusha).

    Wow. These could revolutionize the function of household power. If you could have these batteries included with household appliances, how much power would households really consume? Although, there is no mention here as to what the cost of these batteries are.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *