It is just past midnight on January 1, the Year 2025. Before I write let me wish every reader
A very blessed and
bountiful New Year
An inquirer sent me a Tik Tok about a “diamond battery” that never runs out of energy.
She asked me if this is true? The
link is here:
https://www.tiktok.com/@graceistruth2012/video/7446336612054732064
This
battery uses isotope of carbon 14 as the source of energy.
Instead
of merely answering her yes or no, I thought I should write an article on this where I can explain in greater technical details and expand on this, than what this gentleman in the Tik
Tok claims.
From
what I know many years ago, diamond battery is the name of a nuclear battery
concept proposed by the University of Bristol Cabot Institute during its annual
lecture held on 25 November 2016 at the Wills Memorial Building. This battery
is proposed to run on radioactivity from waste graphite blocks (previously used
as neutron moderator material in graphite-moderated reactors) that would
generate small amounts of electricity for thousands of years. The battery is a
beta voltaic cell using carbon-14 (14C) in the form of diamond-like carbon
(DLC) as the beta radiation source, and additional normal-carbon DLC to make
the necessary semiconductor junction and encapsulate the carbon-14.
The
estimated power of a small C-14 cell is 15 Joules / day for thousands of years.
(For reference, an AA battery of the same size has about 10 kilojoules total,
which is equivalent to 15 J / day for just 2 years).
The proposer who
suggested this idea noted it is not possible to directly replace an AA battery
with this technology, because an AA battery can produce bursts of much higher
power as well. Instead, the diamond battery is aimed at applications where a
low discharge rate over a long period of time is required, such as space
exploration, medical devices, seabed communications, microelectronics, etc.
The diamond battery emits energy, but only as small doses of radioactivity that may last for thousands of years as it slowly decays. Let me
expand on this further.
What I know about this diamond battery is, it is a
type of beta-voltaic cell, meaning it converts beta radiation (high-energy
electrons) emitted during radioactive decay into electricity. It utilizes
carbon-14 (C-14), a radioactive isotope commonly found in graphite blocks used
in nuclear reactors, as the radiation source.
A
diamond-like carbon structure encapsulates the radioactive material, acting
both as the radiation source and as a semiconductor.
Characteristics
and limitations of this battery is that the power output of such batteries is
extremely low, in the order of 15 Joules/day for a small C-14 cell. This makes
it unsuitable for high-power devices but ideal for long-lasting, low-power
applications such as pacemakers, satellites, or deep-sea sensors. The diamond
structure encapsulating the C-14 is designed to block almost all radiation,
making it safe for use in various applications.
How
long can this battery last? The half-life of carbon-14 is approximately 5,730
years. This means the radioactivity—and thus the energy output—will decrease by
half every 5,730 years. While this is exceptionally long compared to
conventional batteries, the power output is small and continuous. Carbon-14
cannot undergo fission like uranium or plutonium. Fission occurs in very heavy
nuclei (like uranium-235 or plutonium-239) that can split into smaller nuclei
upon absorbing a neutron, releasing large amounts of energy.
Carbon-14
undergoes beta decay, a much slower process where a neutron in the nucleus
converts into a proton, releasing a beta particle (electron) and an
antineutrino. This decay process is not capable of producing the immense energy
as seen in nuclear fission. On feasibility and applications, the diamond
battery is not a solution for high-power needs, its long lifespan makes it an
attractive option for applications where energy density (long duration) is more
critical than power density (high bursts of energy).
Some
possible applications include space exploration. Powering sensors or
devices on distant planets or in deep space where replacing batteries is
impractical.
It has
its use in medical devices since long-term implants like pacemakers require
minimal maintenance. It can be used for remote systems such as seabed
sensors or remote communication relays.
Claims
on platforms like TikTok and videos often exaggerate or oversimplify scientific
concepts. While the diamond battery does "last thousands of years,"
its power output is minuscule and not suitable for most everyday applications.
It is not a perpetual energy source and certainly not a competitor to fission
reactors or chemical batteries in terms of power.
Thus,
my answer and opinion of that claim is that the diamond battery is an ingenious
concept for specific use cases, particularly in extreme or remote environments.
However, it is not a revolutionary power source that can replace conventional
batteries or nuclear power in broader applications. Its role is more niche,
complementing existing technologies rather than replacing them.
In
fact, carbon-14 is not used for this purpose. It is used for radiocarbon
dating. It is a radiometric dating method to determine the age of
carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years old. The technique was
developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues in 1949 during his tenure as a
professor at the University of Chicago. Libby estimated that the radioactivity
of exchangeable 14C would be about 14 decays per minute (dpm) per gram of
carbon, and this is still used as the activity of the modern radiocarbon
standard. In 1960, Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this
work.
One of
the frequent uses of the technique is to date organic remains from
archaeological sites. Plants fix atmospheric carbon during photosynthesis; so,
the level of carbon-14 (C-14) in plants and animals when they die, roughly
equals the level of C-14 in the atmosphere at that time. However, it thereafter
decreases exponentially; so, the date of death or fixation can be estimated.
The initial C-14 level for the calculation can either be estimated, or else
directly compared with known year-by-year data from tree-ring data
(dendrochronology) up to 10,000 years ago (using overlapping data from live and
dead trees in a given area), or else from cave deposits (speleothems), back to
about 45,000 years before present. C-14 is used by scientists to date fossil remains in the evolution of life on Earth - an area I have some idea.
Carbon-14
is also produced in the upper troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal
neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere,
they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons.
In all, this natural process as carbon 14 decays it does emit very
tiny amounts of energy over thousands of years. In fact, all radioactive
substances, not just carbon -14, emit tiny amounts of radioactivity, that is
also a form of energy.
Let me
explain radiocarbon dating we use in biological evolution just a little bit more. The fact that plants and
animals maintain a balance of carbon-14 while alive—and that this balance
starts to decrease after death—is a cornerstone of archaeology, palaeontology,
and geology.
Willard
Libby's pioneering work in 1949 revolutionized how we understand historical
timelines, allowing us to date organic remains up to 60,000 years old. The
correlation with tree rings (dendrochronology) and other data further validates
the method, making it one of the most reliable tools in radiometric dating.
Production of carbon-14 is also found in the atmosphere. The natural formation
of carbon-14, via cosmic rays interacting with nitrogen-14, is a fascinating
process. These cosmic rays generate high-energy neutrons, which are absorbed by
nitrogen nuclei, producing carbon-14 in this reaction:
714N+n→614C+11H
This
means that carbon-14 is continually replenished in the atmosphere, maintaining
a near-steady-state equilibrium of radioactive carbon in the biosphere, at
least on short geological timescales.
As
carbon-14 undergoes beta decay, it emits tiny amounts of energy in the form of
beta particles (high-energy electrons) and antineutrinos. These emissions are
the very basis of its use in diamond batteries and also why it is detectable in
radiocarbon dating.
The
decay equation is:
614C→714N+β−+νˉe
The
energy emitted during beta decay is relatively small—on the order of 0.156 MeV
(million electron volts) per decay. For context, nuclear fission (as in
uranium-235) releases 200 MeV per fission event, which is why carbon-14 does
not produce the vast energy we associate with nuclear reactors.
Every
radioactive isotope emits energy as it decays. The form of radiation depends on
the type of decay. Alpha decay releases helium nuclei (alpha particles). Beta
decay emits electrons or positrons (beta particles) and neutrinos, whereas
gamma decay emits high-energy photons (gamma rays).
The
energy released by these processes is indeed a form of energy, but it varies
greatly between isotopes. For example, carbon-14 emits low-energy beta
particles, uranium-238 releases higher-energy alpha particles while cobalt-60
emits strong gamma rays used in medical therapies.
However,
in most cases, the energy output is modest and spread out over long periods,
unless we are dealing with highly enriched materials (like those in nuclear
reactors).
Indeed,
the very same principle underpins technologies ranging from nuclear batteries
to radiometric dating and even radiotherapy. What differs is how the energy is
harnessed.
In the
case of carbon-14, the energy is minuscule but steady, making it useful for
niche applications requiring longevity rather than power density. Other
isotopes, like uranium-235 or plutonium-239, are chosen for applications
demanding concentrated energy release.
However,
if we want quick release of large amounts of energy then we should look for
nuclear material like uranium, plutonium, and thorium where its proton and
neutron can be split apart as fissionable material after its ore is purified
into enriched uranium (U-235), uranium-233, and plutonium-239. Uranium ore
concentrates are considered to be a "source material"
If the
goal is to achieve a quick and concentrated release of energy, fissionable
materials such as enriched uranium (U-235), uranium-233, or plutonium-239 are
the go-to choices. Let me expand slightly on this for clarity and depth:
Fissionable
materials like uranium, plutonium, and thorium are capable of undergoing
nuclear fission—the splitting of their nuclei into smaller fragments—when
struck by a neutron. This process releases an enormous amount of energy in the
form of heat and radiation.
Key
fissionable isotopes are uranium-235 (U-235). This is found naturally in
uranium ore, but only 0.7% of uranium is U-235. Enrichment is required to
increase its concentration for use in reactors or weapons. Enrichment is
critical for sustained chain reactions.
Plutonium-239
(Pu-239) is another fissile material. Synthetic isotope produced by irradiating
uranium-238 in reactors is highly fissile and used in nuclear weapons and
fast reactors.
Uranium-233
(U-233) is produced from thorium-232 via neutron capture in thorium reactors.
It offers a potential alternative to uranium or plutonium in the future.
The
Role of Enrichment and Purification:
Raw
uranium ore or thorium ore cannot directly be used as fuel. It must undergo
extensive purification and sometimes enrichment to isolate or increase the
percentage of fissile isotopes.
Enriched
uranium contains a higher percentage of U-235 (e.g., 3-5% for reactors, 90%+
for weapons). Plutonium-239 is separated chemically after being bred in
reactors.
These
purified materials are termed "special nuclear materials" due to
their ability to sustain a chain reaction.
Chain
Reactions and Energy Release:
The
power of fission lies in the chain reaction, where each fission event releases
energy (~200 MeV per fission). Neutrons which induce further fission in nearby
nuclei becomes a cascading process resulting in an explosive release of energy used in nuclear weapons
or a controlled release in nuclear reactors.
For
example:
922/35U+n→56/141Ba+36/92Kr+3n+Energy
The
released energy comes from the conversion of mass into energy, as described by
Einstein’s famous equation:
E=mc2
Source
Materials vs. Special Nuclear Materials:
Uranium
ore concentrates are considered "source material. “They are
naturally occurring materials like uranium ore or thorium ore. These are
then purified as special nuclear materials. The purified or enriched isotopes
like U-235, U-233, and Pu-239 are the ones that can sustain chain reactions.
Source
materials are less reactive and pose a lower proliferation risk, while special
nuclear materials are tightly controlled due to their potential for use in
weapons.
Energy
Density Comparison:
It’s
worth noting that the energy density of fissionable materials far exceeds that
of chemical fuels. Fission of 1 kg of U-235 releases ~80 terajoules of energy,
equivalent to burning ~3,000 tons of coal! This is why fissionable isotopes are
the backbone of nuclear energy and weapons.
Materials
like uranium, plutonium, and thorium are sought after for large-scale energy
production.
However,
if we want much cleaner and more long-lasting energy we might as well
source them from the Sun by fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium that could last
us at least for another 5 billion years. But I don't think we can do this on
Earth as this would require immense pressure to squeeze the hydrogen together
like those gravitational forces in the Sun and stars.
Many
years ago, I read that Chinese scientists have managed to create an
artificial 'sun' but only for a few seconds. Here on Earth, any fusion
reaction will have to take place at a tiny fraction of the scale of the Sun,
without the benefit of its gravity. So, to force hydrogen nuclei together on
Earth, engineers need to build the reactor to withstand temperatures at least
ten times that of the Sun – which means hundreds of millions of degrees. But my
feeling is, in practice we need to pump in more energy to squeeze the hydrogen
nuclei together than we can get out of it. In actual practice, we can't
get something more than we put in, can we?
Fusion
Energy: The Power of the Stars
Fusion,
the process that powers the Sun and stars, involves combining hydrogen nuclei
(protons) to form helium, releasing enormous amounts of energy in the process.
The reaction primarily responsible in the Sun is:
4H→4He+2e++2νe+Energy
On
Earth, we aim to fuse deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen) because they
require slightly less extreme conditions and release more energy per reaction:
2H+3H→4He+n+17.6MeV
The
question we ask is, why is fusion ideal for clean energy? Fusion has enormous
potential. First, there is an abundant fuel supply. Deuterium can be
extracted from seawater, and tritium can be bred from lithium. There is also
minimal waste in that fusion does not produce long-lived radioactive waste like
fission. There is also no risk of meltdown. Fusion reactors inherently shut
down if containment is lost, unlike fission reactors.
It
virtually has unlimited energy. If harnessed successfully, fusion could meet
humanity’s energy needs for millennia.
But
there is a catch. It needs extreme conditions. The Sun relies on gravitational
confinement, with its immense pressure and temperature (~15 million °C) to
overcome the Coulomb barrier (the electrostatic repulsion between positively
charged nuclei).
On
Earth, we cannot rely on our gravity, unlike those crushing gravities found in the Sun and stars. So, instead of gravity, we must create even higher
temperatures—hundreds of millions of degrees—to provide the nuclei with enough
kinetic energy to overcome this barrier.
Energy
Input vs. Output:
The
energy required to heat and contain the plasma is currently greater than the
energy released by the fusion reaction. We cannot yet get out more energy than
we put in. The Lawson Criterion defines the conditions (density, temperature,
and confinement time) needed for a net energy gain. Meeting this criterion is
the central challenge.
There
is also the problem with the containment of plasma. At such high temperatures,
hydrogen exists as a plasma (a soup of ions and electrons). Containing this
plasma without it touching and destroying the reactor walls is a monumental
task.
There
are two primary approaches to confinement. These are, magnetic confinement
(e.g., Tokamaks): Using powerful magnetic fields to hold the plasma in a
donut-shaped reactor.
Inertial
confinement (e.g., Laser Fusion) by compressing and heating small fuel pellets
with intense laser pulses.
Achievements
in Fusion: The 'Artificial Sun'
China
and other countries have indeed made impressive strides. For example, China’s
EAST Tokamak (Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak) In 2021, it
maintained a plasma temperature of 120 million °C for over 100 seconds, setting
a record.
International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is a massive collaborative project
aiming to achieve a net energy gain by the 2030s.
While
these experiments are remarkable, they are still in the proof-of-concept phase.
Sustaining a stable, net-positive energy reaction remains the goal.
Net
Energy Gain and Recent Progress:
In
December 2022, researchers at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in the
United States achieved a historic milestone. For the first time, a fusion
experiment produced more energy than was absorbed by the fuel (a small net
gain). However, when considering the total energy input (e.g., energy required
to power the lasers), the process was still far from breakeven.
This
shows progress but underscores the immense engineering challenges that remain.
Can We
Get More Energy Out Than We Put In?
Theoretically,
yes! Fusion has the potential for a high energy yield because of the
mass-to-energy conversion described by Einstein’s equation (E = mc^2).
The key
is to overcome the engineering hurdles by improving plasma confinement,
reducing energy losses, and scaling the technology for practical use.
If
these challenges are solved, fusion could deliver vast amounts of energy with a
fuel efficiency far exceeding any current technology.
Closing
Thoughts:
While
fusion presents extraordinary promise, it is not yet practical because the
energy input still exceeds the output in most experiments. However, the
continued global investment and breakthroughs suggest that fusion could become
a reality within the next few decades.
Fusion
is indeed the "holy grail" of energy—a clean, sustainable source that
mimics the very process powering the stars. If humanity succeeds in harnessing
it, we could secure a virtually limitless energy future.
However,
if the present and future humanity wants an endless source of energy beyond his
needs here’s another source I have thought about and have penned on Monday,
September 4, 2023, here:
An Unending Source of Energy from The Ocean
1. Scientific Logic: An Unending Source of Energy from The
Ocean
2. https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2023/09/an-unending-source-of-energy-from-ocean.html
This is
astronomically far, far, far more fantastic in energy output to meet the entire
humanity's energy needs for almost all eternity than that “diamond battery” the
gentleman in the Tik Tok claimed which led the inquirer asked me about
…who in turn led me to write this article to celebrate my brand New Year 2025 for academic fun.
-
ju-boo lim
