Self-destructing batteries could change recycling, medical implants, even war

The concept of self-destructing technology takes the inherent consumption at the heart of consumer electronics and brings it to the forefront. There’s something many people find almost distasteful about tech that’s designed to destroy itself — even if the timeline for that destruction is longer than the device could realistically last. Nonetheless, the idea of self-destructing technology is immediately applicable to problems of waste disposal, and further out than that, the ability to have a device or device component literally melt away could end up changing the abilities of a number of industries and even warfare. This week, researchers at Iowa State University got a lot closer to that goal with a new transient battery that could power self-destructing electronics.

Their achievement is important for two reasons. One, it increases the usefulness of self-destructing batteries by doubling their voltage to about 2.5 volts — more than the voltage of a AA or AAA battery. Two, this new battery dramatically decreases the time it takes to actually dissolve away, validating the concept from a pure practicality standpoint. If the technology is ever to succeed, it will need to be useful to the consumer while offering an accessible improvement when it comes time for cleanup. This battery is a step toward both goals.

The battery is only about a millimeter thick, smaller than a postage stamp. Nano- and micro-particles of lithium salts and silver make up the battery’s version of electrodes, held in a water-soluble polymer. When exposed to water for just 30 minute, this breaks down and the micro-particles disburse. It’s surprising that there’s no mention of a cleanup process to precipitate this battery dust out of a sample of water; in its current form, you’d have a hard time selling the concept of washing your battery down the drain, or of dumping millions of these batteries straight into the oceans.

Imagine if the highly computerized weapons systems captured by the Islamic State, things like aircraft tracking equipment and advanced artillery, were just a button-push from obsolescence. Knowing that ability was available might change the calculus in providing military assistance around the world. No longer would it be necessary to hold back on providing technology for fear of who will end up using it. The question would instead be: Will the people we want to have this technology be able to hold onto it long enough for the investment to be worth it, or will we just have to destroy our own equipment so quickly that the gift was a big waste of resources?