Beta radiation is easily absorbed, by a thin sheet of aluminium for example, so the device casing would be enough.
The Voyager power sources have a half life of 88 years. So these new power generators would be useful for very long missions. A niche application admittedly.
As said, I was not replying to that post.
Only if the casing is metal. If it’s plastic or ceramics, it would need to be ~1cm thick to block the beta particles (way too thick for an implant). And aluminum is not a great material due to its low biocompatibility – you’d have to use something like stainless steel or titanium, which complicates matters.
I for one would much rather have a conventional battery in a pacemaker (lasting 6-10 years) than something that needs radiation shielding just so it could still be working when my mummy is dug up by future archeologists thousands of years after I die 
Yes, and this means that after 88 years they would be producing half the power. And after 88 more years, half of that (so 25% of the original) and after 88 more years (totaling 264 years), half of the latter (so 12.5% of the original). But that’s over 2 centuries and a half – and given the original power capacity was 470W, that would mean 58.75W – still 8 orders of magnitude more than the microwatts a C14 battery would provide.
So these new power generators would be useful for very long missions. A niche application admittedly.
If it’s in the inner solar system, solar panels and conventional batteries work very well regardless of mission duration (the Juno spacecraft is out there by Jupiter and has been working fine for over 13 years, and will potentially last much longer than its other components (propulsion subsystem, even only for orbit keeping, will run out of propellant long before panels and batteries become a problem).
And for outer solar system and beyond, I think RTGs are a much better, more powerful and more proven solution.
Anyway, who knows? Perhaps we will start to see C14 battery applications RSN, But I wouldn’t bet on it, given the above.
That particular cell is CLEARLY biased towards peak output rather than maximum capacity though.
Thanks for the heads-up, I just checked and that’s indeed the case. It was kinda confusing given the mixed topics.
@Leif, sorry for the confusion. I will edit my message now to make that clear.
Thanks for the video @dannyd555222. Looks like even “normal LiFePO4” is safe enough to not lead to ignition even when a nail is driven through it, which is very good news indeed (I’m usually off-grid on top of a 4KWh bank of LiFePO4 batteries).
These are lithium thionyl cells, not rechargeable. For disposable cells, they do have enormous capacity though.
Something tells me you have to know everything. Tell you what, I’ll apologise for commenting. You’re right, I’m wrong, sorry. There, that’s sorted. Next.
Seems you took it personally, so please let me clarify: I have no intention of “being right all the time”, just to state the facts as I see them (and always ready, and even hoping, to be proven wrong – as that’s the only way to learn). I apologize (truly, with no sarcasm) if I rubbed you the wrong way.
Thanks for the clarification. In fact the ebay entry @dannyd555222 indicated lists it under the “Rechargeable batteries” category, despite stating it’s a “primary” battery in the subject – so kinda confusing.
The reason I replied as I did is because you gave the impression of arguing for the sake of arguing, a stream of negative comments. A little thought would have shown that biocompatibility is not an issue as you only need a thin inner shell of aluminium. Of course it might or might not be suitable for implants for other reasons, I don’t design implants for a living, so I am not aware of the issues in practice.
Folks, some of us asked that they let the engineers not the sales reps post. Engineers posting odd bits about science pushing new tech and stretching old limits should be ours enlightenment. Lets enjoy the odd bits tossed out here to read. Knowing that most of us here are some where on the spectrum, quibbling is expected but not fighting. As for me it’s back to morning drinking.
Agreed. Let’s just stop this; I for one will not continue, despite having more to say. Thank you for pointing it out.
Actually the real reason I posted it is cause some of the manufacturers that make these are saying that they can be stored at up to 100c degrees
That’s why I looked into them
I’m still waiting for someone to make a battery that has a high temp so I can keep them in a flashlight in my car without worrying about them exploding
I’m too poor to be able to buy another car
Even a used one
Always nice to see the kids work things out on their own, isn’t it? 
I’m pretty partial to LiFeS2 (aka Energizer Ultimate) primary batteries for extreme temperature use cases; in fact, its datasheet states that it’s safe to store up to 60C (140F). And its application manual, states that the worst thing that happens at high temperature is that it could “cause the insulating label to shrink and expose the battery’s steel can to potential external short circuits” (not a big issue IMO for a battery already inside a flashlight with the contacts already positioned over its terminals).
Also, given that a closed car in the summer reportedly goes ‘only’ up to 132F (~56C) after a full day in the sun, I would say that Energizer Ultimates should have you covered.
These also have a high IR so cannot sustain large current demands. For an emergency headlamp/flashlight used on low modes, they might be good!