An Endless Energy from A Diamond Battery?

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:

 

714​N+n→614​C+11​H

 

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:

614​C→714​N+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:

922/35​U+n→56/141​Ba+36/92​Kr+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