(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
There are drawbacks, of course, but overall it's a very popular technology.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
First, you canβt switch them off, so they are either always warm or the are trickle-charging another storage system (batteries, capacitors, whatever) within the device.
Second, the radiation. You can do various things to limit the risk, but the LD50 is something like 0.25 watts of absorbed ionising radiation sustained for 18 minutes, so damage to the batteries (malicious or accidental) would have significantly greater harms than, say, asbestos, CFCs, or domestic carbon monoxide sources.
You absolutely do not want a 10 watt lightbulb powered by built-in atomic batteries anywhere it can get messed with, let alone a 2 kW kettle or a 5 kW oven.
(Replying to PARENT post)
tl;dr very feasible sans NIMBYs
The DoE investigated this exact thing. I happened across the papers while browsing microfiche. It makes the most sense to serve a neighborhood off small house/shed sized generating facility. As you scale up you can switch to normal turbine operation, as you scale down you move back to thermoelectric operation. Single houses could be powered from thermoelectric piles but this would probably have been reserved for expensive, remote vacation homes.
Closer to battery sized, you can layer radioactive material against quantum dots that turn alpha particles into photons and emit those photons directly onto a PV cell.
(Replying to PARENT post)
Concrete seems far more common in residential construction outside of the U.S. I wonder if technologies such as aircrete (concrete with uniform foam produced air bubbles).
Also well There's Your Problem had an interesting article about the 5-1 construction that is used for a lot of new apartment buildings in the U.S. https://wtyppod.podbean.com/e/episode-46-five-over-ones/