Skip to main content

I Want a Nuclear Powered iPhone

Michael Purdie
The following is a guest post by NEI's Michael Purdie. 

The Wall Street Journal's Jon Keegan recently published a very interesting infographic on how long your iPhone would keep operating depending on the ultimate power source. Keegan analyzed the energy density of certain fossil fuels, batteries, and even body fat (which was pretty cool) and analyzed how long an iPhone could run based on its theoretical battery volume.

Keegan looked at three scenarios: regular use, LTE browsing, and stand by time for an iPhone 6s. Under those conditions, Keegan estimated that the lithium ion battery in your iPhone should last 15 hours from regular use, 10 hours from LTE browsing, and 10 days on standby. The results ranged from an hour from a lead acid battery (similar to that of the one in your car) to 10 days by diesel fuel from regular use. In case you were curious, body fat would power your phone for 9 days.
Can't fight the power.

Interestingly, there was one fuel source that didn't make Keegan's cut: uranium. For those of you who are wondering, uranium oxide, the fuel that powers nuclear reactors, is so energy dense that its fission process could power your iPhone for almost 12,000,000 days of regular use! That’s over 32,000 years!

If for some reason you left your phone on standby mode, you would not need to charge your phone for 515,000 years.

I have many questions for Apple CEO Tim Cook. Would my warranty last that long? Would I be able to keep my original data plan? How is this possible?

Keegan analyzed electrical energy density in Watt hours per liter (Wh/l). This is the measurement of electrical energy per hour in a certain volume (in this case, a liter). In Keegan’s analysis, he calculated the densest fuel to be diesel fuel at 10,700 (Wh/l). The uranium fuel in nuclear reactors has 13.2 billion Wh/l.

This is simply the energy released when nuclear fuel is in an operating reactor.  Less than five percent of nuclear fuel is from the Uranium-235 isotope.  Also, not all of the U-235 isotopes fission.  If we assumed that the battery was powered by U-235 and had 100% fission, we’d be talking about trillions of WH/l. If you'd like to check my work, click here.

The larger point is that when it comes to energy density, nuclear energy is the superior technology. Here's another real world example. A typical 1,000-megawatt reactor can be sited on a 1.3 square mile parcel of land, a size roughly equivalent to New York's Central Park. This includes all of the plant's operations, including security and onsite storage of used nuclear fuel.

To generate the same amount of electricity, a solar facility would require 45-75 square miles, between 1.3 and two times the size of Manhattan. A wind farm able to generate as much electricity would be larger still, between 260-360 square miles, or between 7 and 11 times the size of Manhattan.

The ability of nuclear energy to deliver so much carbon-free electricity in such a small package makes it so valuable to our energy future.

EDITOR'S NOTE: After taking a second look at our calculations, we discovered that we had underestimated the potency of uranium by a factor of 1,000. Thanks to The Nuclear Advocate on Facebook for pointing out the error.

Comments

jim said…

Good article!

This is sheer ancient history but my folks bought the World Book Encyclopedia around 1962-63, and the atomic energy section featured this shirt-button sized atomic battery, which I think I recall was composed of a sandwich of electrodes and maybe uranium or plutonium, whatever, it was shown handled in bare hands and I think it was intended for Accutron watches and pacemakers for the 1964 Worlds Fair. Can't Google it to save my life now!

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Adam Gott said…
I understand the point of your post but you would have to add an extra ~1 kg of mass to your iPhone and that would also be discounting the weight of your moderator.
Anonymous said…
@Adam Gott. Lol. Agreed. People as it is complain when phone's battery temperature rises during heavy use. Imgaine how much heat would be generated using uranium?
Anonymous said…
The weight of only the uranium would be inconsequential...

10.97 g/cu_cm (mass density UO2) * 9322cu_mm (Battery Volume) = 0.225 lb = 3.6 oz

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…