Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Tiny Atomic Battery Could Run For Decades Unattended

[AtomicRod@aol.com]

Adam:

Very interesting article. It is wonderful to see that there is renewed 
interest in the idea of nuclear batteries. I will never forget the first time 
I saw a display in the Maryland Science Museum in Baltimore that included the 
case from a radioisotope thermal generator (RTG) designed to power a 
pacemaker. It was a bit smaller than a typical AA battery. The energy supply 
was 1/200th of an ounce of Pu-238.

It made so much sense to me then. There are some places where the simple act 
of changing batteries is incredibly difficult, so a power supply that really 
"lasts and lasts" longer than anything that chemical energy can supply offers 
amazing potential.

I also get sick to my stomach every time I remember the conversation I had in 
the corridors of an American Nuclear Society meeting about the fate of that 
battery system. It seems that some bureaucrats at the NRC killed the program 
because they could not figure out a way to ensure that the batteries would be 
recovered. They were afraid to allow the technology to develop because they 
thought it would be too hard to control. I am still not sure what they 
thought might happen; Pu-238 is NOT fissile and it is probably not any more 
hazardous than nickel-cadmium or metal hydride, especially when sealed into a 
strong container.

Rod Adams