You are not logged in.
After a thorough study of Nickel-63 as a potential benign nuclear power storage and retrieval device, Tritium was proposed as an alternate material for study.
This topic is offered for NewMars members who might wish to contribute to a collection of knowledge/insights/tips about this material.
While the material has been used for illumination of various kinds for a number of Earth years, ** this ** inquiry is intended to explore how it might be used for a large scale mass produced energy storage and deliver system.
The target capacity is 20 Kw.
The half life of this material is much less than was the case for Ni-63.
The duration of the period from 20 Kw to 14 Kw is seven years.
Seven years is an attractive swap interval for a home heating application on Earth, and potentially elsewhere in the solar system.
It might work for a Large Ship as well, since flights will typically last on the order of two years to Mars, and they could easily extend to several more years if Large Ship is sent beyond Mars.
(th)
Offline
This post is reserved for an opening discussion with ChatGPT that led to the identification of Tritium as a candidate material for a nuclear battery.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Uy … sp=sharing
The transcript at the link above makes the transition from Nickel-63 to Tritium. It includes details about how Tritium might be enlisted for the 20 Kw home power application that is an objective of this topicl.
(th)
Offline
We have had discussions for the use oof He3 from the moon and it appears we have that.
China has returned helium-3 from the moon, opening door to future technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
Of course, its use is found in Cold Fusion
title error Mining H3 on the moon - Popular Mechanics article
Mining He3 on the moon - Popular Mechanics article
Offline
For SpaceNut re #3
Thank you for your support of this new inquiry, and thanks in particular for your collection of links about Helium 3!
While copper (Cu-63) was an output from decay of Ni-63, it turned out that Copper is less valued on Earth than Nickel due to relative abundance and possibly other factors.
If fusion gets going, it would appear that Helium-3 will be highly valued. As it is, Helium itself is valued on Earth in 2024, due to it's ability to lift balloons safely, and it's valuable qualities as an insert gas for rocketry and other applications.
(th)
Recruiting High Value members for NewMars.com/forums, in association with the Mars Society
Offline
The tokamak and laser ignition versions of fusion both seem to use some blend of deuterium and tritium as their fusion fuels. I'm not sure about the H-bombs, but I know the heavy hydrogen(s) in them are stored as lithium hydride solids.
Deuterium is safe enough to handle, but I had the impression that tritium was quite the radiological danger to anyone close by around it. And it gets around easily, being a gas at ordinary conditions. Just something else to worry about.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
For GW Johnson re #5
Thanks for contributing to this new topic, and for bringing any dangers there might be early.
Tritium emits an electron and a neutrino went it decays into Helium-3. The Neutrino is harmless, and the electron has 1/4th the energy of Nickel-36, which itself is a beta emitter. I would appreciate any solid information that may be available about why Tritium would be considered a risk to a human who breathes it in. It seems possible that having an electron emitting substance inside the body might not be a good idea, but I'd like this topic to contain real (as opposed to imaginary) data, and real (as opposed to hypothetical) countermeasures that are taken in handling the substance. You are right about Deuterium. It comprises a portion of all water on Earth.
I have not investigated Helium-3, but it may have it's own risks, and those need to be identified in this topic as well.
(th)
Offline
Here is a summary of my first session with ChatGPT4, considering Tritium for energy storage and retrieval for home use ...
Summary: Tritium-Based Power Package Feasibility
Objective: To assess the feasibility of using Tritium (Hydrogen-3) for a power package designed to initially output 20,000 joules per second (20 kW) and maintain operation until the output drops to 14 kW.
Key Findings:
1. Mass of Tritium Required: Approximately 20.5 kg (0.0205 tons) of Tritium is needed to generate an initial power output of 20 kW.
2. Energy Output Comparison: Tritium's average energy release per beta decay (5.7 keV) is lower than Nickel-63's (17 keV), but Tritium is more abundant and feasible for mass production.
3. Operational Life Span: The power package using Tritium is expected to operate effectively for approximately 7 years, starting from an output of 20 kW and decreasing to 14 kW, based on Tritium's half-life of 12.32 years.
4. Safety and Handling: Tritium, being a low-energy beta emitter, is relatively safe to handle, especially when contained in sealed systems. However, safety and regulatory compliance are crucial due to its radioactive nature.
5. Product Life Cycle Strategy: A 7-year swapping schedule for the power pods is deemed viable and aligns well with the operational life span of the Tritium power package.
Conclusion: Tritium presents a promising material for a power package with a target operational range between 20 kW and 14 kW. Its relative abundance, manageable safety profile, and the feasibility of a 7-year operational life make it an attractive option for this application. The proposed swapping schedule further enhances the practicality and sustainability of the power system.
(th)
Offline
The report below contains calculations that need to be double checked ...
This text is from the opening session with ChatGPT4 on New Year's Eve, 2023...
Tritium Mass Calculation for 20 kW Power Output
Objective: To calculate the mass of Tritium (Hydrogen-3) required to generate a continuous power output of 20,000 joules per second (20 kW), based on its beta decay properties.
Key Assumptions:
1. Average energy released per beta decay of Tritium: 5.7 keV
2. Half-life of Tritium: 12.32 years
3. Avogadro's number: 6.022 × 10²³ atoms/mol
4. Conversion factor from MeV to Joules: 1.60218 × 10⁻¹³ J/MeV
5. Molar mass of Tritium: 3 g/mol
Calculations:
1. Energy per Decay in Joules:
◦ Energy per decay (Tritium) in joules: EnergyTritium=5.7×10−3MeV×1.60218×10−13J/MeV
◦ Calculated Energy: EnergyTritium≈9.13×10−16J
2. Decays per Second for Desired Power:
◦ Power Output: 20,000 J/s
◦ Decays per second (Tritium): DecaysTritium=9.13×10−16J20,000J/s
◦ Calculated Decays per Second: Approx. 2.19×1019decays/s
3. Tritium Mass Required:
◦ Decay Constant of Tritium: λTritium=Half-life in seconds0.693
◦ Atoms of Tritium: AtomsTritium=λTritiumDecays per second
◦ Moles of Tritium: MolesTritium=Avogadro’s numberAtomsTritium
◦ Mass of Tritium: MassTritium=MolesTritium×3g/mol
◦ Calculated Mass: Approx. 20.5 kg (0.0205 tons)
Conclusion: Approximately 20.5 kg (0.0205 tons) of Tritium is required to generate a continuous power output of 20,000 joules per second (20 kW), considering its beta decay characteristics and half-life.
(th)
Offline
At the advice of a friend who uses both BARD and ChatGPT, I decided to ask BARD to review the work of ChatGPT4... I gave BARD the set of calculations reported in Post #8 above. BARD confirmed the work. I will attempt to paste the review here:
I've carefully reviewed the calculations and assumptions presented in the report, and I can confirm that the conclusion is consistent with the methodology used.
Here's a breakdown of my assessment:
• Accuracy of Calculations:
◦ The conversions between energy units (keV to MeV to Joules) are correct.
◦ The use of Avogadro's number and molar mass to determine the tritium mass is accurate.
◦ The calculation of decay constant and decay rate aligns with the principles of radioactive decay.• Reasonableness of Assumptions:
◦ The average energy release per beta decay of 5.7 keV is within the accepted range for tritium.
◦ The half-life of 12.32 years is accurate for tritium.Therefore, based on the information provided, I concur with the report's conclusion that approximately 20.5 kg of tritium would be required to generate a continuous power output of 20 kW.
Additional Considerations:
• It's crucial to acknowledge that this calculation solely addresses the amount of tritium needed for energy production. It doesn't account for the efficiency of the energy conversion system or the practical challenges of working with radioactive materials.
• Storage and shielding considerations for tritium are paramount due to its radioactive nature.
• Regulations and safety measures for handling tritium would need careful adherence.While the calculations support the feasibility of using tritium for energy storage in theory, further research and development would be necessary to address practical engineering challenges and ensure safe implementation.
Happy Day! The Apache Internal Server Error allowed this post!
I followed up by asking BARD to try to account for the difference in mass of the two materials.
Nickel-63 needs 3.5 tons to generate 20 Kw, and Tritium needs only 20.5 kilograms.
The answer is saved in a file which I can link if anyone would like to see it. The gist of the explanation is that the difference can be accounted for by a combination of the greater count of baryons (63 vs 3) but ** also ** by the significant difference in half life (12~ years vs 100~).
The requirement for only 20.5 kilograms of mass of Tritium means the project can proceed to investigation of feasibility.
(th)
Offline
If anyone has time, I'd appreciate a search for links to work that might have been done with Tritium ... It seems unlikely to me that anything I could think of would not have been thoroughly studied by researchers around the planet over many decades.
It would be interesting to read reports of that earlier work.
As things stand, as I am in a state of almost complete ignorance about the material, I will undertake an initiative to try to find out if it is practical for use as an energy storage mechanism on a large scale. It seems to me that if such a thing were possible, it would have been thought of long ago.
There are multiple questions to be posed and pursued:
1) How to make Tritium in the quantities needed (related: how to harvest Deuterium as feedstock)
2) How to pull as much energy as possible out of a Tritium store (electrical as first priority, and thermal otherwise)
3) How to package a Tritium energy store to be safely sold to the consumer market (related: how to meet all regulatory/safety requirements)
4) How to accurately and calmly assess whatever risks may be involved. All energy storage involves risk, but association with nuclear triggers fear.
Plus whatever remains in a futurescape that is foggy.
(th)
Offline
If Li-6 is exposed to a neutron flux, it will yield tritium and He-4. The most neutron efficient way of doing this is to build a fast or epithermal reactor and use liquid Li-6 as the coolant. Helium is non reactive and can be removed by degassing at a slightly lower pressure. The tritium is an isotope of hydrogen that will rapidly react with the lithium to produce lithium hydride. This should precipitate out of the liquid lithium if the coolant is stored in a settling tank. In a fusion-fission hybrid system, the fission reactors will provide tritium to drive the fusion reaction. There could be a surplus of tritium available for other applications.
The problem is that every tritium atom produced is a neutron lost to the system that could have been used to breed a fissile atom. Fission yields about 10,000x as much energy per neutron as tritium decay. But the argument could be made that it would be strategically unwise to continue breeding excess fissile material once the world has enough breeder reactors to meet its energy needs. Creating useful radioisotopes is a better use for those neutrons than building up radioactivity in shielding materials. But one additional problem with tritium is that it can be used to boost the power of fission based weapons. By adding lithium tritide and deuteride to the core of a fission bomb, one can increase the proportion of fissile atoms undergoing fission. This can turn a 10kT warhead into a 100kT warhead, making the bomb a lot more threatening.
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
A Stanford University student published a paper he prepared for a course ....
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/park-j1/
Here is an excerpt:
Junwon Park
March 3, 2017
Submitted as coursework for PH241, Stanford University, Winter 2017
Nuclear BatteryFig. 1: Enhanced Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. (Courtesy of NASA)
The public is familiar with nuclear energy in nuclear power plants but not in batteries. Nuclear batteries are in fact closer to nuclear power plants than traditional batteries in that they use radioactivity to generate power instead of storing an amount of charge. When compared to chemical batteries, nuclear batteries are characterized by higher volumetric energy density (therefore longer battery life) and stronger endurance in harsh conditions. This report will explore the present state of nuclear battery technology and recently discovered possible breakthroughs.Applications
Space exploration poses unique challenges that are not faced when working with electronics on Earth. It is impossible or extremely costly to access a device once it has been launched into the space. Because only a small percentage of sunlight reaches the outer perimeter of the solar system compared to the orbit of Earth, solar energy is not a practical solution to powering electronic equipments when exploring the outer planets. NASA uses a specific type of nuclear battery technology called Radioactive Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) to power their spacecrafts in missions that last over 10 years.Implantable medical devices (IMDs) also utilize the unique characteristics of nuclear batteries. Just like in spacecrafts, batteries used to power IMDs must function reliably over a long period of time without being accessed for recharge or maintenance. Unlike in spacecrafts, however, batteries used in IMDs must be limited in size and radioactivity. Hence, a different nuclear battery technology called betavoltaic cell is used in IMDs. Although the technology was invented and widely used for patients in the 1970s, the potential risk of radiation convinced the medical industry to shift to lithium ion batteries in the 1980s. Only with the recent advancement in safety of nuclear batteries, the option with a considerable advantage in battery life is being reconsidered.
The United States Department of Defense requires that every missile and aircraft be equipped with an anti-tamper protection such that the technology cannot be reverse-engineered by others. Because a single instance of battery malfunction can wipe the memory circuit's configuration, batteries used in anti-tamper system must withstand temperatures between -65 and +150 degrees Celsius, high-frequency vibrations, and high humidity. [1] Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, therefore, uses nuclear batteries to power the anti-tamper system under harsh conditions and prolonged usage. [1]
Radioactive Thermoelectric Generator (RTG)
Radioactive Thermoelectric Generator uses heat generated spontaneously from radioactive substances. The technology requires a large space to capture escaping heat inside semiconductors effectively. The shortcomings of RTG technology are its poor efficiency of 6%, its low power density, and its large size. [2]NASA calls their technology Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG), and in 2016, NASA announced the next generation Enhanced Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (eMMRTG). As Fig. 1 illustrates, eMMRTG improves the original MMRTG with a new thermoelectric technology called Thermoelectric Couple Assembly. eMMRTG's improved efficiency will also help NASA save plutonium which is in extreme shortage in the United States.
Betavoltaic Cells
Betavoltaic cells, also known as betavoltaic devices, are a nuclear battery technology used in small devices that cannot use Radioactive Thermoelectric Generators. Betavoltaic cells utilize beta-decay of isotopes such as tritium. Tritium is a byproduct of nuclear power plants, so manufacturing betavoltaic cells with tritium is an excellent way to turn nuclear wastes into useful goods. [3] The shortcoming of betavoltaic cells in, comparison to chemical batteries, is the low power output. According to Jonathane Greene, the CEO of Widetronix which manufactures betavoltaic cells, a package that is one centimeter-squared wide and two-tenths of a centimeter tall generates one microwatt of power. [1] In comparison, a smartphone using 50% CPU, Wi-Fi connection, and white display will use 1857 mW, so a nuclear battery is not suitable for consumer electronics. [4]Aqueous Nuclear Battery
Baek Hyun Kim and Jae Won Kwon at University of Missouri published a paper in 2014 proposing one possible next generation nuclear battery technology. Aqueous Nuclear Battery, which is also known as water-based nuclear battery, uses liquid medium for radiolysis, absorbing the kinetic energy of beta particles which is lost in betavoltaic cells. In Kim and Kwon's design using nanoporous titanium dioxide semiconductors coated in platinum, a high efficiency of 53.88% was reached at a potential of 0.9 volts. [5] Using an aqueous solution for radiolytic energy conversion results in higher energy level and lower temperature than using a solid state material does.
The paragraph of interest for ** this ** topic is the one about beta devices in the section quoted above.
In particular, I note the reference to a company that makes betavoltaic cells: Jonathane Greene, the CEO of Widetronix
(th)
Offline
Following up:
Per Google:
Including results for jonathan greene the ceo of widetronix corporation
Search only for jonathane greene the ceo of widetronix corporationJonathan Greene, CEO
Jon has focused his career on partnering with researchers to commercialize early-stage technologies. Prior to joining Widetronix in 2007, he started two energy companies based on Cornell technology and he was the Founding Director of Cornell's Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise.People | widetronix.com
Widetronix
https://www.widetronix.com › people
About featured snippets
•
FeedbackJon Greene, Widetronix Inc: Profile and Biography
Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com › profile › person
Jon Greene is Chief Executive Officer at Widetronix Inc. See Jon Greene's compensation, career history, education, & memberships.About Us | widetronix.com
Widetronix
https://www.widetronix.com › about
The company is managed by CEO Jonathan Greene, and CTO Dr Christopher Thomas. Since 2007 Jon and Chris have been working together in early stage ...Jonathan Greene - Crunchbase Person Profile
Crunchbase
https://www.crunchbase.com › person › jonathan-gree...
Jonathan Greene is the VP Business Development at Sterifre Medical . Additionally, Jonathan Greene has had 1 past job as the Founder at Widetronix .Widetronix Culture
Comparably
https://www.comparably.com › Companies
Jonathan Greene serves as the CEO / President of Widetronix. ... Chris Thomas serves as the CTO of Widetronix, Inc.. Chris started at Widetronix, Inc. in Jan of ...Widetronix Careers
Wellfound
https://wellfound.com › company › widetronix-3
Jonathan Greene. CEO • 16 years. Avatar for Jonathan Greene. EIR - Cornell Incubator (curr) Founder - Widetronix (07-curr) Dir - Ctr Sust. Gbl. Entp. (04-06) ...Cornell-developed battery technology company receives $2.2 ...
Cornell Chronicle
https://news.cornell.edu › stories › 2010/05 › widetron...
May 4, 2010 — U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-22nd District) speaks with CEO Jonathan Greene '93, MBA '04, May 3 during a public announcement of federal funding ...WideTronix Inc
Inknowvation.com
https://www.inknowvation.com › sbir › companies
Aug 30, 2023 — Jonathan Greene -- CEO and Founder Michael G Spencer -- President and Founder Mvs Chandrashekhar Yuri Makarov Christopher Thomas -- CTO ...Widetronix, Inc., New License Application dated 02/07/2014.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (.gov)
https://www.nrc.gov › docs
Feb 7, 2014 — Widetronix, Inc. 2. ADDRESS OF LICENSEE. 950 Danby Road, Suite 139 ... Jonathan Greene, CEO;. 2. Jeffrey Leavey, CHP;. 3. Christopher Thomas ...
Images
(th)
Offline
Tritium has a sufficiently low decay energy, radiotoxicity, and short half-life, that it can be used in small applications without regulatory oversight. This includes consumer products. Tritium already has uses in radioluminescent coatings. It is too expensive at present to be particularly widespread. Presumably, if price of the isotope is reduced, these applications could increase.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium … minescence
I ran a comparison of tritium to 238Pu as a radiodecay energy source. Decay of 238Pu releases almost 6MeV of energy, whilst tritium decay releases only 0.01859MeV. However, the atomic mass of tritium is only 3, versus 238 for 238Pu. So the decay power per gram of tritium is a little under one half that of 238Pu. Tritium has a half-life of 12.7 years. So a tritium RTG could be used for long duration space flight, but would need to be designed to account for radioactive decay in transit. I suspect cost would prevent the use of tritium in this way. It takes a lot more neutrons to produce each joule of energy. Neutrons are expensive.
Last edited by Calliban (2024-01-02 09:44:11)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
For Calliban re #14
Thank you for your support of this inquiry, and for the Wikipedia reference!
This post is reserved for any notes that may seem appropriate after review of the reference.
(th)
Offline
This post is to report a revision of the estimate of mass required to produce 20 Kw at the start, and 14 Kw after 7 years.
ChatGPT4 originally calculated 20.5 kilograms as the starting mass, and BARD confirmed the calculations. However, in a spirit of excessive caution, I started a fresh session with ChatGPT4 and asked it to perform the calculation all over again. This time, it used a different approach, and it came up with 60+ kilograms needed to start. I then asked it to look at the earlier work, and it found a discrepancy based upon the initial approach. The new calculation adjusts performance of the system as the available mass decreases as decay takes place. Here is the new calculation, formatted for display in the forum if we are able pass review by the Apache Internal Server Error nitpicking system:
Tritium Mass Calculation for 20 kW Power Output (Revised Approach)
Objective:
To calculate the mass of Tritium (Hydrogen-3) required to generate a continuous power output of 20,000 joules per second (20 kW), considering its beta decay properties and the changing decay rate over time.Key Assumptions:
- Average energy released per beta decay of Tritium: 5.7 keV
- Half-life of Tritium: 12.32 years
- Avogadro's number: 6.022 × 10²³ atoms/mol
- Conversion factor from eV to Joules: 1.60218 × 10⁻¹⁹ J/eV
- Molar mass of Tritium: 3.016 g/molCalculations:
Energy per Decay in Joules:
- Energy per decay (Tritium) in joules:
EnergyTritium = 5.7 × 10³ eV × 1.60218 × 10⁻¹⁹ J/eV
- Calculated Energy: EnergyTritium ≈ 9.13 × 10⁻¹⁶ JDecays per Second for Desired Power:
- Power Output: 20,000 J/s
- Decays per second (Tritium):
DecaysTritium = 20,000 J/s / 9.13 × 10⁻¹⁶ J
- Calculated Decays per Second: Approx. 2.19 × 10¹⁹ decays/sTritium Mass Required:
- Decay Constant of Tritium:
λTritium = 0.693 / (Half-life in seconds)
- Atoms of Tritium:
AtomsTritium = Decays per second / λTritium
- Moles of Tritium:
MolesTritium = AtomsTritium / Avogadro's number
- Mass of Tritium:
MassTritium = MolesTritium × 3.016 g/mol
- Calculated Mass: Approx. 61.52 kgConclusion:
Approximately 61.52 kg of Tritium is required to generate a continuous power output of 20,000 joules per second (20 kW), considering its beta decay characteristics, half-life, and the changing decay rate over time.
Amazing! The quote appears to have been accepted.
It should go without saying (BUT I'LL SAY IT ANYWAY) ... I'm anxious for more knowledgeable members to review this work. We have already found one difference in approach that led to a different result. I'm looking for results that can safely be offered for a peer reviewed journal.
(th)
Offline
This may be a useful way of generating power from tritium without moving parts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optoele … ar_battery
Essentially, we have a mixture of tritium and krypton gas within a small spherical pressure vessel. The tritium decay excites the krypton atoms and they release visible light as they return to ground state. The pressure vessel is lined with PV cells, which convert the light into electricity. This would work well if we needed batteries that were extremely small, say to power micromachines. Or batteries that could power medical implants for decades.
The classical design optoelectric battery only works with a radioactive gas as the energy source, which is rather limiting. A variation on the idea would be to coat a web of fine carbon fibres with a solid beta emitter like Sr-90. If the fibres are fine enough, then most of the beta particles would escape the surface with most of their energy. If the mesh is contained in a optoelectric cell filled with krypton, then beta particles leaving the surface would deposit their energy into the gas. Provided the solid volume fraction was low overall, most of the beta energy would still be converted into visible light which could be turned directly into electricity. This would make a good power source for outer solar system probes.
Last edited by Calliban (2024-01-02 10:29:18)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
For Calliban re #17
Thank you for this interesting and encouraging post. I'm wondering if this technique can be scaled up?
I'm interested in putting 61+ kilograms of Tritium to work. The default output mode is dumb thermal, and that is good for heating a home or for heating water for bathing/washing, but electrical output would be an attractive output, and the more of that produced, the better.
Production of Tritium on a mass scale is a question that put ChatGPT4 into a funk, because it went off the rails over the current method of production of Tritium as a process applied to Lithium. I'm not interested in competing in the Lithium market. Deuterium, on the other hand, is available in vast quantities as a component of sea water that is increasingly passing through desalination facilities.
(th)
Offline
in asking ChatGPT4 to look for ways to make Tritium, it went off on a tangent about Lithium.
I had to ask it for forget Lithium, and then it went off on a tangent about fusion reactors, which do not currently exist except as experimental rigs that do not produce break-even power.
It then ** finally ** focused on heavy water reactors. When I asked it to dive further into that option, it came up with a hint that design of the reactor and how it is operated can make a difference. The best hint that came out of that discussion was that low energy neutrons are better for making Tritium from Deuterium. I don't know much about this, but I would guess that reactor designers are NOT looking for low energy neutrons, and may in fact be actively trying to avoid them when making power for the electric market.
The reactor I have in mind would be designed to maximize the production of Tritium for the home heating and power market, and that power production for the electric market would be a productive use of some of the energy produced by the reactor.
(th)
Offline
In post #17, Calliban showed that Krypton can be used to help to capture energy from Tritium.
I asked Google about Krypton, and it came up with this:
https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com … ket-101961
The global krypton market is projected to grow from $57.31 million in 2022 to $60.95 million by 2029, at a CAGR of 0.9% in forecast period, 2022-2029... Read More at:- https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com … ket-101961
The home heating market would be competing with already well established industries for a limited supply of krypton.
The benefit of Krypton would appear to be it's ability to absorb a punch from an electron and emit a photon as a result. I would guess that the electron must force it's way into the electron shell of Kryton, and a photon is emitted, but I'm not clear on what happens next. The Krypton atom would presumably want to eliminate the extra electron at the first opportunity, so what happens to the electron then?
(th)
Offline
Offline