Feasibility Analysis of Solar Power for the Safety of Fast Reactors during…

Feasibility Analysis of Solar Power for the Safety of Fast Reactors during beyond Design Basis Events

This chapter presents a new design that unites the favorable technical and ecological characteristics of the solar and nuclear power plants. The current designs of nuclear reactors promise integral configuration of the primary coolant loop, secondary coolant loop, and a number of passive safety functions and overall simplification of the reactor. The present nuclear reactor design emphasizes on the safety of the reactor core at all times, i.e., controlling the reactor, cooling the reactor core, and maintaining containment. In case of non-availability of standby emergency DGs during beyond design basis event like Fukushima incident, etc., leading to extended station blackout conditions, the passive decay heat removal system will be affected. Hence, additional DGs have been made as a mandatory requirement in nuclear power plants. In case the ADG could not be mobilized during BDBE, an additional backup power source not affected by BDBE is appreciated. Hence in addition to the diesel power sources (EDG and ADG), a new design was developed for integration of diesel power with solar power. The hybrid system was designed to improve the reliability and availability of passive heat removal system, to ensure a reliable supply without interruption, and to improve the overall system reliability (by the integration with the battery bank). This hybrid power also gives the redundant power supply to the safety critical systems. This chapter also features a detailed reliability analysis carried out for power supplies to the safety critical loads. In addition a comparison was made between PV/diesel/battery with diesel/battery. These new hybrid systems conserves diesel fuel and reduce CO2 as well as particulate emissions that are harmful to environment health. Integration of solar power to the existing battery power will increase the reliability and extended availability of the system and thereby ensures safety of the plant during crisis/calamities.

Keywords

• solar power
• nuclear power
• diesel power
• GRID power
• economical
• PV cell with battery
• reliable power
• hybrid solution

Author Information

Kudiyarasan Swamynathan

• Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited, Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam, Tamilnadu, India

P. Sivakumar

• Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited, Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam, Tamilnadu, India

K. Karthikeyan

• Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited, Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam, Tamilnadu, India

Address all correspondence to: kudiyarasan@rediffmail.com

Introduction

Energy security is a goal that many countries are pursuing to ensure that their economies function without interruption and that their people have access to adequate, reliable and affordable supplies of modern and clean energy [1, 2, 3]. It is a pressing concern because the demand for energy is growing rapidly due to robust economic expansion, population growth, new uses of energy and income growth and yet the supplies of energy resources required to power these needs are finite and in most cases non-renewable [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Furthermore, the production, transportation and utilization of energy are a major source of greenhouse gases that cause global warming and climate change [10, 11].

BharatiyaNabhikiyaVidyut Nigam Limited (BHAVINI) is currently in the advanced stage of commissioning of the 500 MWe PFBR Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam. The PFBR is the forerunner of the future Fast Breeder Reactors which provides energy security to the country. The design of PFBR is indigenously developed by Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research (IGCAR) located at Kalpakkam.

PFBR uses sodium as a coolant to transfer heat from the reactor core to the water for steam production. PFBR is a pool type reactor having two loops of sodium viz. Primary and Secondary sodium loops. The entire bulk of the primary sodium is contained in a single large vessel called the main vessel. Two Primary Sodium Pumps (PSPs) circulates sodium in the main vessel through the reactor core. An inner vessel separates hot and cold pools of sodium. The heat transfers from primary sodium to secondary sodium through 4 Intermediate Heat Exchangers (IHXs) and then from secondary sodium to water for steam production through 8 Steam Generators (SGs). The liquid sodium being highly reactive with air, it requires additional safety measures to isolate the coolant from atmosphere. Above the free level of sodium, in main vessel argon gas is provided.

During full power operation of the reactor, sodium is drawn from the cold pool by 2 mechanical centrifugal PSPs working in parallel and is delivered to the grid plate through 4 pipes at 670 K (397°C). From there, it passes through the core and picks up the heat. Then the sodium at 820 K (547°C) flows into hot pool and enters the inlet Windows of IHXs. The flow through IHX is due to sodium level difference of 1.5 m between hot and cold pool generated by main pump. It passes through the shell side of the IHX and transfers heat to the secondary sodium which passes through the tube side. The primary sodium leaves the IHX through the outlet Windows and returns to the cold pool. The schematic of the reactor system is shown in Figure 1 [12].

Variable speed AC drives are provided for the two primary and two secondary sodium pumps. The supply to these drives systems for normal operation is fed from the Class IV (Grid) normal AC power supply. When the normal AC power supply fails, the flow requirement during the initial coast down period is provided by the energy stored in the flywheels of the motor for all the four sodium pumps.

Additionally, an AC pony motor (powered by UPS supply) with over-run mechanical clutch is provided over each PSPs to provide forced core cooling during loss of off-site power supply and station black out conditions for 4 h. The over-run mechanical clutch provided disconnects the pony motor from the main drive motor when the speed of the main drive motor is greater than 17% of the rated speed. On loss of Class IV supply, PSPs coast down to 20% speed from 100% speed due to flywheel action in 40 sec and the speed reduces to 15% in 50 sec. The PSPs are provided with hydrostatic bearings and the PSPs are required to be operated at least at 15% speed to prevent damage to bearing [13]. PSPs are not envisaged to be started from rest using Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) sets due to provisions of pony motor and the pump running under loss of offsite supply.

The power supply to the pony motor is fed from the class III 415 V bus and from a dedicated battery bank along with the associated inverter. The Pony motor is designed to drive the pump at 17% of the rated speed when the power supply to the PSP AC drive motor fails. The dedicated battery bank is designed to supply power to start the pony motor from rest and cater the load of pump lubrication oil system for 4 h. The battery is sized such that the end cell voltage is 1.85 V at the end of 4 h of operation of the pony motor. This battery is charged by battery charger fed from the Class III emergency bus power supply. Each Pony motor is provided with an inverter to convert the DC voltage into AC voltage.

No break AC and DC system power supply derived from Class III Busses. During normal operating condition, the offsite class-IV power supply is extended to battery Class I as well as UPS class-II system requirement through the Class III Emergency bus. However, during loss of offsite class-IV system, the power supply will be derived from class-III system through Emergency DGs. On failure of the offsite and onsite Emergency DG power supply, this class-I and II system will continue to feed its load from the stored energy in battery banks to meet the emergency requirement. During this condition, battery will feed the power supply requirement for bringing the reactor to safe shutdown state, ensuring decay heat removal with pony motor, passive heat removal system, etc., and also monitoring vital core parameters up to 4 h.

A detailed analysis of PFBR after Fukushima incident recommended that during a natural calamity of such higher magnitude, the existing arrangement may not be sufficient to meet the emergency requirement [14]. Hence, additional DGs/mobile DGs were provided to meet the emergency requirement. The reliability of the system will increase further with this provision. A detailed study indicated that the above system may also become insufficient when Additional Diesel Generators (ADG) could not be moved to the desired location as the access roads may not be conducive during floods or tsunami incident.

In view of the above, solar power can also be integrated with the existing ADG to improve the reliability of the system. The hybrid solar and diesel power will improve the reliability of the safety and safety critical systems on BDBE and ensures availability of these systems to mitigate the consequences of such events. These new hybrid systems conserves diesel fuel and reduce CO2 as well as particulate emissions that are harmful to environment health. This paper also features a detailed analysis of the energy flows through the system. In addition a comparison was made between PV/diesel/battery with diesel/battery and the result shows that the capital cost of a PV/diesel hybrid solution with batteries is nearly three times higher than that of a diesel and battery combination.

Existing electrical configuration

Electrical system is one of the major sub-systems of PFBR which comprises normal and emergency power supply systems. Normal power supply is Generator power supply during plant operation and power supply from the grid during Startup of the plant or in case of Generator trip event. Emergency power supply is the onsite power supply to the safety related systems which supports the loads related to plant safe shutdown and to remove the decay heat. The emergency power supply system includes Class III power supply back up provided by Emergency DGs, Class II No break AC power supply and Class I No break DC power supply. In case of normal power supply failure, UPS supplies power to Class II system loads. Rectifier/Charger with battery backup feeds the loads pertaining to Class I system until Emergency DG power supply is restored [15]. The moment Emergency DG incomer closes, these loads are fed by diesel power supply and the remaining class III safety loads are restored according to the priority. The existing normal and backup sources are shown in Figure 2.

Station blackout occurs when the off-site power supply fails and the all four Emergency DGs (on-site power supply) could not be deployed. Under a station blackout conditions, the Class I and Class II power supplies should be available for a minimum period of 30 min to meet the rated loads and to supply the essential loads important to the safety and controls of the reactor for the station blackout duration of 4 h. The Class I and Class II system batteries form the source of power during the station blackout condition.

Following the occurrence of the station blackout, under the reactor shut down condition, the decay heat from the core is removed by the safety-grade decay heat removal circuits. In order to help the removal of the decay heat AC Pony motors are provided for the primary sodium pumps and they are fed from their dedicated batteries and the associated inverters. Detailed analysis has been carried out for the station blackout duration. The probability of occurrence of Station Blackout (SBO) with duration of 4 h is 10 –4 per reactor year and the probability of occurrence of an SBO with duration of 14 h is 10 –6 per reactor year. The estimated unavailability of class III power system is 2.4 × 10 –3 per reactor year for 2 out of 4 Emergency DG systems and 6.8 × 10 –4 per reactor year for 1 out of 4 Emergency DG systems. The dedicated batteries supplying the AC pony motor are rated for a minimum of 4 h duration so that the clad temperature limit is not exceeded. Natural convection is adequate to limit the clad temperature during SBO beyond 4 h. The power supply to the pony motor is fed from two class III 415 V bus and from a dedicated battery bank along with the associated inverter. One class-III power supply is connected to the charger. Another one is connected to the bypass through static switch. In case the rectifier/charger unit is having internal problem, then the second source will feed the power supply to the pony motor [16].

Solid state converters and stationary lead acid batteries are used in the power supply circuit intended to supply power to the AC pony motor and the pump auxiliaries for the lubrication oil system. Each Pony motor is provided with an inverter to convert the DC voltage into AC voltage [17].

Further, power supply to the each main oil and standby lube oil for pony motor is received from one dedicatedclass-III Motor Control Center (MCC) panel and one standby power supply from the dedicated battery system as show in Figure 3 [18].

Proposed electrical configuration

The above arrangement is generally available in existing nuclear power plants. In case of non-availability of Emergency DGs during BDBE (In view of Fukushima incident) leading to extended station blackout conditions, a safety up-gradation of emergency power supply is essential. To meet the requirement an additional two numbers of 500 kVA rating tyre mounted portable ADGs are to be moved to site from the stored location to ensure availability of power to PSP pony motor (45 kW) and monitoring, removal of decay heat from the reactor, Motors associated with Control and Safety Rod Drive Mechanism (CSRDM), Diverse Safety Rod Drive Mechanism (DSRDM) lighting in the main control room, back up control room, switchyard control room and the DG buildings.

The ADGs are planned to be located away from the main plant area, in Emergency Control Center which will be a common facility at Kalpakkam equipped to deal all types of accident/crises/emergencies. These ADGs will be mounted over the seismic pads. When requirement arises, ADGs will be brought to plant area nearby Electrical Building. The ADG is always kept on the Tyre mounted truck at an elevation which is 3.154 m above plant design basis flood level. The tyres will be raised above floor by mechanical jacks during operation. Considering the condition of access route post-accident/natural calamity this ADG will be brought into the plant area from its storage location with the help of Tractor/Hydra/Crane/JCB, etc., within the station blackout period, i.e., 4 h. ADG oil storage tanks are designed to store the fuel for 8 h of continuous operation. This ADG will feed the power to the existing 415 V busses. The power supply provision between the ADG Panel to the existing 415 V busses are permanently made available. Cables are to be laid from ADG and ADG panel when the ADGs are moved. Considering the design safety limits for driver fuel clad hotspot temperature, adequate capacity battery backup is provided to ensure effective decay heat removal [19]. The minimum coping time of 4 h is recommended considering of the combination of events. The minimum required lighting for safe movement of ADGs to locations near Electrical Building like alternate Street lights are temporary powered. The portable battery operated torches will also be pressed into service.

A solar power unit having PV cells mounted at the top of Electrical building-1, Electrical Building-2 and Control building is connected to the Pony motor Battery banks through a DC-DC Converter with surge protective devices [20]. The DC-DC converter is equipped with in an Auto synchronization facility which is provided for pumping power during day time/when solar radiation is available [21]. The synchronization is done at DC side instead of connecting at the incomer AC supply side by converting PV-DC supply to AC supply by an additional Inverter [22]. This arrangement complicates the system and an extra device reduces the reliability. This arrangement gives extra reliable power supply to the decay heat removal mission. The proposed additional mobile DGs (ADG) and Solar with the existing power sources are shown in Figures 4 and 5.

In addition to existing, two more redundant power supply provision are made to increase the reliability of the system. The ADGs power supply fed to the existing 415 V class-III bus through Switch Fuse Unit (SFU). A Solar power is also introduced in the proposed power supply schematic of pony motor. The solar power is directly connected to the existing battery system to charge the battery through SFU and Miniature Circuit Breaker (MCB) [23]. The solar power is will directly charge the battery as well as deliver the load through the inverter. The proposed electrical power schematic is shown in Figure 5.

Design basis external events of nuclear reactor

Nuclear reactors are prone to get affected due to various events as indicated in the Figure 6. The major event to affect the reactor is power failure, earthquake, flood and lightning [24]. During all the events power failure is one of the main causes to affect the reactor safety system. Hence to overcome the above issues in the modern world, integrated power supply to be arranged for reactor cooling systems [25]. In line with the above, here the solar power is integrated along with the existing additional DGs to increase the reliability of the nuclear safety [26].

In the existing system, during a BDBE, the Emergency Diesel Generator may fail and the ADGs will be lined up to feed power supply to the pony motors. If ADGs could not be shifted to the desired location within 4 h, the dedicated battery banks gets drained and there is no further backup for reactor core cooling. Hence, the proposed system will continue to feed power supply to the battery banks and the reactor safety will be ensured during beyond design basis event also.

Reliability of existing power supply scheme

Pony motor is supplied with 415 V dedicated 90 kVA UPS and also a Class III 415 V supply from emergency bus as seen earlier. Failure rate of the Pony Motor on demand has been estimated by computational methods using software called ISOGRAPH Reliability Work Bench 2008. The failure of each power supply train and its probable causes have been analyzed separately to arrive at the overall failure rate of pony motor. In the existing scheme, the UPS failure includes failure of rectifier path and battery path. With two sources of power supply failure to UPS taken for the analysis, the failure rate of Pony Motor UPS is found to be 3.85 × 10 –5 [27]. This brings the overall failure rate of the Pony motor to 0.0149 as shown in Figure 7 [28].

Reliability of proposed power supply scheme

With inclusion of solar power in the existing scheme, the failure rate has been analyzed [29]. The failure rate of DC to DC converter used in solar power supply unit is 1.5 × 10 –6 and for the associated components is 1 × 10 –4. The DC to DC output of solar power unit is connected before the pony motor battery inverter circuit. With this additional power source and the existing two power supply paths, the overall failure rate of the pony motor UPS is found to be 3.77 × 10 –9. This brings the overall failure rate of pony motor to 0.000878 as shown in Figure 8 [30, 31].

Results and discussions

The failure rate with addition of solar power supply unit to the Pony Motor UPS system reduces the failure rate of the Pony Motor by several decades, i.e., from 0.0149 to 0.000878. With this new addition of solar power to the existing scheme, the availability of the Pony Motor is increased.

The prevailing nuclear power plants are having Grid power supply, Emergency Diesel Generators, UPS AC supply, Battery backup DC supply and ADGs for, safe shutdown and decay heat removal mission of the reactor. A complete loss of power supply for reactor cooling system was considered as BDBE for which the frequency occurrence is very remote and was neglected before Fukushima incident. However, the Fukushima incident has given a lesson to all the nuclear operators across the globe that the plant should be equipped to handle even the BDBE situations also. Hence, to overcome the above issues World Association for Nuclear Operators (WANO) has recommended that all nuclear power plant should have Emergency DGs along with an additional mobile DGs (ADG) for emergency situations. Further, to strengthen the backup power supply and to overcome the beyond design basis event solar power can be integrated with existing arrangement. This hybrid solar power will increase the reliability of the system and will reduce the non-availability of power supply failure during BDBE. The proposed arrangement reliability was also analyzed through software and found that it is increasing the reliability of the existing set up. A tropical country like India has solar radiation for 10 out of 12 months. Hence, the solar power will be used as backup power for nuclear power plant.

Conclusion

The prevailing nuclear power plants are having grid power supply, emergency diesel generators, UPS AC supply, battery backup DC supply, and ADGs for safe shutdown and decay heat removal mission of the reactor. A complete loss of power supply for reactor cooling system was considered as BDBE for which the frequency occurrence is very remote and was neglected before Fukushima incident. However, the Fukushima incident has given a lesson to all the nuclear operators across the globe that the plant should be equipped to handle even the BDBE situations. Hence, to overcome the above extreme events, the World Association for Nuclear Operators (WANO) has recommended that all nuclear power plant should have emergency DGs along with an additional mobile DGs (ADG) for emergency situations. Further, to strengthen the backup power supply and to overcome the beyond design basis event, solar power can be integrated with existing arrangement. This hybrid solar power will increase the reliability of the system and will reduce the nonavailability of power supply failure during BDBE.

The proposed arrangement reliability was also analyzed through software and found that it is increasing the reliability of the existing setup. A tropical country like India has solar radiation for 10 out of 12 months. Hence, the solar power will be used as a backup power for nuclear power plants. The failure rate with addition of solar power supply unit to the Pony Motor UPS system reduces the failure rate of the Pony Motor by several decades, i.e., from 0.0149 to 0.000878. With this new addition of solar power to the existing scheme, the availability of the Pony Motor is increased. The hybrid solar power supply system utilized in nuclear reactors is highly reliable to the reactor safe shutdown system during day time emergency requirement. However, during night time, the stored power supply from the batteries will cater the essential loads in discharge mode. Onset of the solar power batteries will get charged again. The batteries shall be sized to store enough power to take care of the night time requirement. In addition to this, it is proposed to integrate emergency DG, additional mobile DG (ADG), and solar power with wind power for the future nuclear reactors which may increase the reliability further thereby ensuring the plant is capable of handling any BDBE that occurred in Fukushima—Daiichi.

PowerBanks How It Works

Powerbanks are becoming popular these days as our gadgets or devices were all getting smarter versatile tools in our daily lives specially for various types of communications such as calls,SMS,emails and other task,and these Smart devices (smartphones tablets) needs more power for them to work and last for a day as they should be. Normally the devices that needs a back up power are the smartphones tablets these days.And most of us individually owns one.But not all people knew how powerbank works literally.And some sellers just don’t explain on how their Powerbank works.And many people just end up buying the wrong specifications of powerbank that suits the need of their devices (such as smartphones tablets).That’s the reason I made this and compiled some facts gathered from different manufacturers and blogs site ,and made it into one instructables that may help some DIY’ers who planned to build their own powerbank or just buy the right one.

Step 1: How It Works? What Type of Powerbank to Choose?

Power Banks are all the rage, they came in various shapes and sizes.,but what are they for? We explore their potential, and how to choose the right one. What is a Power Bank and what can they charge? Portable Power Banks are comprised of a special battery in a special case with a special circuit to control power flow. They allow you to store electrical energy (deposit it in the bank) and then later use it to charge up a mobile device (withdraw it from the bank). Power Banks have become increasingly popular as the battery life of our beloved phones, tablets and portable media players is outstripped by the amount of time we spend using them each day. By keeping a battery backup close by, you can top-up your device(s) while far from a wall outlet. The Power Banks we’re talking about are good for almost any USB-charged devices. Cameras, GoPros, Portable speakers, GPS systems, MP3 players, smartphones and even some tablets can be charged from a Power Bank. practically anything that charges from USB at home can be charged from a Power Bank. you just have to remember to keep your Power Bank charged, too! Power Banks may also be known as Power Stations or Battery Banks, too. What types of Power Banks are there?Three major types of Power Bank found on the market today: 1. Universal Power Bank. They come in many sizes and configurations which can be tailored to your device requirements and to your budget. 2. Solar-Charged Power Bank. They have photovoltaic panels which can trickle-charge the internal battery when placed in sunlight. Solar charging isn’t fast, so they can usually charge via cable as well. 3. The third type of Power Bank is the older-style battery phone case. While they can be handy, this type of Power Bank has very narrow device compatibility, How do I charge a Power Bank? Most commonly, a Power Bank will have a dedicated input socket for receiving power. This power can come from a USB socket on your computer, but may charge faster when using a wall socket adapter. We most often see Power Banks use a Mini or Micro-USB socket for charging, and full-sized USB sockets for discharging. On very rare occasions, Power Banks can use the same socket for input and output, but this is rare and should not be assumed of any Power Bank, as trying to force power into an output can damage the battery. Always check the manual for specific instructions if you’re not able to find a clearly marked input socket. Depending on the capacity of the Power Bank and its current charge level, it can take quite a while to fill up. For example, a 1500mAh rated Power Bank should take about the same time as your typical smartphone to charge. For larger banks, this time can be doubled, tripled or quadrupled. Most Power Banks have both an LED indicator to show when they are at capacity, and a safety cut-off to prevent overcharging and overheating. Whenever possible, remove the Power Bank from charge when it is full, or at least avoid leaving it connected long-term after its full. Ambient temperature and power flow will also affect charge times, so it’s best to keep it topped off regularly. Some Power Banks don’t work well with high-capacity chargers (like the ones that come with iPads). Trying to fast-charge a Power Bank from a 2A charger can result in damage to the internal circuitry. How long does a Power Bank last? This is a bit of a loaded question. There are two important life expectancies to consider: 1. The number of charge/discharge cycles a Power Bank can reliably perform in its lifetime. 2. How long a Power Bank can retain its charge when not in use. The answer to point one can differ between models of Power Bank, their internal components and the quality of their manufacturing. We try not to stock Power Banks which have fewer than 500 charge cycles in them. This would allow you to charge a device from the Power Bank every day for a 1.5 years before it started to lose its ability to hold charge long-term. Better and more expensive Power Banks can last longer, while smaller and cheaper units may fall short depending on their treatment. Power Banks are generally not used daily, so they often last much longer than 18 months in real-world usage patterns. Point two depends on the quality of the controller circuitry and battery cells. A good Power Bank can hold charge for 3 to 6 months with minimal loss. Lower quality Power Banks may struggle to retain a useful charge more than 4 to 6 weeks. In this regard, you get what you pay for, and if you need a long-term emergency power supply consider increasing your budget to ensure you’re not going to be caught short. Most Power Banks will slowly lose charge over time, to a degree influenced by the environment and their treatment. For example, leaving a Power Bank in the car where the temperature can fluctuate greatly over time can shorten its lifespan. Technical Term Glossary What does mAh mean? Batteries common to mobile devices and Power Banks are rated on their ampere-hours, measured in milliamps to create non-decimal numbers. The mAh ratings denote capacity for power flow over time. Li-Ion Li-Polymer Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Polymer batteries are the most common rechargeable cell types found in Power Banks. Lithium-Ion cells are generally cheaper and limited in mAh capacity, while Lithium-Polymer cells can be larger and don’t suffer from a memory effect over time. Efficiency When power is transferred, there is always loss due to resistance. Power Banks are not able to transfer 100% of their actual capacity to a device, so we factor in this loss when calculating how many times an average device can be charged from a fully powered Power Bank of any given size. Efficiency ratings differ between Power Banks based on their cell type, component quality and environment. Ratings between 80% and 90% are the current industry standard. Beware of suspiciously low-cost options claiming efficiency ratings of over 90%. Device Depletion This is the state of the battery in the device you wish to charge. The lower its power, the more a Power Bank has to work to bring it back to life. We consider charging from 20% to 90% a full charge, as the efficiency loss increases beyond these points, leading to wasted charging potential. Going from 5% to 100% can take exponentially more power.

Step 2: Choosing the Right Powerbanks:

1.How do I know which powerbank suits my device? Depending on individual needs and requirements, there are several general criteria to consider when selecting a powerbank: a) Capacity For example if your phone battery is 1500mAh and is 0% now, a powerbank with 2200mAh can charge your phone 1 time. If your phone battery is 3000mAh and is 0% now, a powerbank with 2200mAh will not be able to charge your phone to full because the phone battery capacity is higher than the powerbank. If you require a powerbank that is able to charge your phone several times, you need a powerbank with higher capacity. b) Number of output 1 output to charge 1 device, 2 outputs to charge 2 devices. c) Output specification 1A-1.5A output is generally for smartphones, 1.5A-2.0A output is generally for tablets. 2. How long do I need to charge the powerbank for the first time and subsequent time?/ How many times can a powerbank charge my phone? a) Powerbank is already pre-charged and ready to use. b) Re-charging time depends on the capacity of the powerbank, remaining power in the powerbank and the power supply. Example:.Powerbank: 13000mAh (0% remaining).Power Supply/ Input: 1000mA plug.Calculation: 13000mAh/ 800mA = minimum 16.25 hours (Why 800mA? An estimate of 20% power is consumed during the charging/ discharging process) c) Similar formula applies to calculate number of times a powerbank can charge a phone. Example:.Powerbank: 10000mAh (full at 90%).Phone Battery: 1500mAh.Calculation: (10000mAh x 90% x 80%) / 1500mAh = up to 5 times (Why 90%? Assuming the power bank is well maintained in good working condition and can conserve up to 90% power) (Why 80%? An estimate of 20% power is consumed during the charging/ discharging process) Note that the calculation is based on normal condition whereby the powerbank or device (phone/ tablet) is not in use during charging process. A running device generally consumes power therefore if your device is actively in use during the charging process, the charging performance may not meet the expectation. The above calculations are examples made simple for easy reference. Accuracy may vary.

Images in order1.commercial PB (upgraded from 1200 to 2800 mah)2.commercial PB Kit(modified by adding switch and upgraded 2400 to 4000mah)3.commercial PB under my testing.

Step 3: Homebrewed Powerbanks

Image1-using 8 AA Nimh 2800 mah batteries Image2-using 318650 2200mah Li-ion batteries

ibles can be found on my DIYs

Step 4: Difference Between Li-ion and Li-Po

Lithium-ion batteries use a variety of cathodes and electrolytes. Common combinations use an anode of lithium (Li) ions dissolved in carbon or graphite and a cathode of lithium cobalt-oxide (LiCoO2) or lithium manganese-oxide (LiMn2O4) in an liquid electrolyte of lithium salt. Because they use a liquid electrolyte, lithium-ion batteries are limited in shape to either prismatic (rectangular) or cylindrical. The cylindrical form has a similar construction to other cylindrical rechargeable batteries,Prismatic batteries have the anode and cathode inserted into the rectangular enclosure. The image link at illustrates this construction method. Lithium-Ion-Polymer batteries are the next stage in development and replace the liquid electrolyte with a plastic (or polymer) electrolyte. This allows the batteries to be made in a variety of shapes and sizes. The significant advantages of lithium-ion batteries are size, weight and energy density (the amount of power the battery can provide). Lithium-ion batteries are smaller, lighter and provide more energy than either nickel-cadmium or nickel-metal-hydride batteries. Additionally, lithium-ion batteries operate in a wider temperature range and can be recharged before they are fully discharged without creating a memory problem. As with most new technology, the disadvantage is pricing. Currently, lithium-ion and lithium-ion-polymer batteries are more expensive to manufacture than standard rechargeable batteries. Part of this expense is due to the volatile nature of lithium. Lithium-ion batteries are most commonly used in applications where one or more of the advantages (size, weight or energy) outweigh the additional cost, such as mobile telephones and mobile computing devices. Lithium-ion-polymer batteries are used when the battery needs to be a particular shape. Lithium-Ion Battery Characteristics Type Secondary Chemical Reaction Varies, depending on electrolyte. Operating Temperature 4∫ F to 140∫ F (.20∫ C to 60∫ C) Recommended for Cellular telephones, mobile computing devices. Initial Voltage 3.6 7.2 Capacity Varies (generally up to twice the capacity of a Ni-Cd cellular battery) Discharge Rate Flat Recharge Life 300. 400 cycles Charging Temperature 32∫ F to 140∫ F (0∫ C to 60∫ C) Storage Life Loses less than 0.1% per month. Storage Temperature.4∫ F to 140∫ F (.20∫ C to 60∫ C) ï The chemical construction of this battery limits it to a rectangular shape. ï Lighter than nickel-based secondary batteries with (Ni-Cd and NiMH). Lithium-Ion-Polymer Battery Characteristics Type Secondary Chemical Reaction Varies, depending on electrolyte. Operating Temperature Improved performance at low and high temperatures. Recommended for Cellular telephones, mobile computing devices. Initial Voltage 3.6 7.2 Capacity Varies depending on the battery; superior to standard lithium-ion. Discharge Rate Flat Recharge Life 300. 400 cycles Charging Temperature 32∫ F to 140∫ F (0∫ C to 60∫ C) Storage Life Loses less than 0.1% per month. Storage Temperature.4∫ F to 140∫ F (.20∫ C to 60∫ C) ï Lighter than nickel-based secondary batteries with (Ni-Cd and NiMH). ï Can be made in a variety of shapes.

Step 5: Facts About Lithium Ion:

Is Lithium-ion the Ideal Battery?For many years, nickel-cadmium had been the only suitable battery for portable equipment from wireless communications to mobile computing. Nickel-metal-hydride and lithium-ion emerged In the early 1990s, fighting nose-to-nose to gain customer’s acceptance. Today, lithium-ion is the fastest growing and most promising battery chemistry. The lithium-ion battery Pioneer work with the lithium battery began in 1912 under G.N. Lewis but it was not until the early 1970s when the first non-rechargeable lithium batteries became commercially available. lithium is the lightest of all metals, has the greatest electrochemical potential and provides the largest energy density for weight. Attempts to develop rechargeable lithium batteries failed due to safety problems. Because of the inherent instability of lithium metal, especially during charging, research shifted to a non-metallic lithium battery using lithium ions. Although slightly lower in energy density than lithium metal, lithium-ion is safe, provided certain precautions are met when charging and discharging. In 1991, the Sony Corporation commercialized the first lithium-ion battery. Other manufacturers followed suit. The energy density of lithium-ion is typically twice that of the standard nickel-cadmium. There is potential for higher energy densities. The load characteristics are reasonably good and behave similarly to nickel-cadmium in terms of discharge. The high cell voltage of 3.6 volts allows battery pack designs with only one cell. Most of today’s mobile phones run on a single cell. A nickel-based pack would require three 1.2-volt cells connected in series. Lithium-ion is a low maintenance battery, an advantage that most other chemistries cannot claim. There is no memory and no scheduled cycling is required to prolong the battery’s life. In addition, the self-discharge is less than half compared to nickel-cadmium, making lithium-ion well suited for modern fuel gauge applications. lithium-ion cells cause little harm when disposed. Despite its overall advantages, lithium-ion has its drawbacks. It is fragile and requires a protection circuit to maintain safe operation. Built into each pack, the protection circuit limits the peak voltage of each cell during charge and prevents the cell voltage from dropping too low on discharge. In addition, the cell temperature is monitored to prevent temperature extremes. The maximum charge and discharge current on most packs are is limited to between 1C and 2C. With these precautions in place, the possibility of metallic lithium plating occurring due to overcharge is virtually eliminated. Aging is a concern with most lithium-ion batteries and many manufacturers remain silent about this issue. Some capacity deterioration is noticeable after one year, whether the battery is in use or not. The battery frequently fails after two or three years. It should be noted that other chemistries also have age-related degenerative effects. This is especially true for nickel-metal-hydride if exposed to high ambient temperatures. At the same time, lithium-ion packs are known to have served for five years in some applications. Manufacturers are constantly improving lithium-ion. New and enhanced chemical combinations are introduced every six months or so. With such Rapid progress, it is difficult to assess how well the revised battery will age. Storage in a cool place slows the aging process of lithium-ion (and other chemistries). Manufacturers recommend storage temperatures of 15∞C (59∞F). In addition, the battery should be partially charged during storage. The manufacturer recommends a 40% charge. The most economical lithium-ion battery in terms of cost-to-energy ratio is the cylindrical 18650 (size is 18mm x 65.2mm). This cell is used for mobile computing and other applications that do not demand ultra-thin geometry. If a slim pack is required, the prismatic lithium-ion cell is the best choice. These cells come at a higher cost in terms of stored energy. Advantages ï High energy density. potential for yet higher capacities. ï Does not need prolonged priming when new. One regular charge is all that’s needed. ï Relatively low self-discharge. self-discharge is less than half that of nickel-based batteries. ï Low Maintenance. no periodic discharge is needed; there is no memory. ï Specialty cells can provide very high current to applications such as power tools. Limitations ï Requires protection circuit to maintain voltage and current within safe limits. ï Subject to aging, even if not in use. storage in a cool place at 40% charge reduces the aging effect. ï Transportation restrictions. shipment of larger quantities may be subject to regulatory control. This restriction does not apply to personal carry-on batteries. ï Expensive to manufacture. about 40 percent higher in cost than nickel-cadmium. ï Not fully mature. metals and chemicals are changing on a continuing basis. The lithium polymer battery The lithium-polymer differentiates itself from conventional battery systems in the type of electrolyte used. The original design, dating back to the 1970s, uses a dry solid polymer electrolyte. This electrolyte resembles a plastic-like film that does not conduct electricity but allows ions exchange (electrically charged atoms or groups of atoms). The polymer electrolyte replaces the traditional porous separator, which is soaked with electrolyte. The dry polymer design offers simplifications with respect to fabrication, ruggedness, safety and thin-profile geometry. With a cell thickness measuring as little as one millimeter (0.039 inches), equipment designers are left to their own imagination in terms of form, shape and size. Unfortunately, the dry lithium-polymer suffers from poor conductivity. The internal resistance is too high and cannot deliver the current bursts needed to power modern communication devices and spin up the hard drives of mobile computing equipment. Heating the cell to 60∞C (140∞F) and higher increases the conductivity, a requirement that is unsuitable for portable applications. To compromise, some gelled electrolyte has been added. The commercial cells use a separator/ electrolyte membrane prepared from the same traditional porous polyethylene or polypropylene separator filled with a polymer, which gels upon filling with the liquid electrolyte. Thus the commercial lithium-ion polymer cells are very similar in chemistry and materials to their liquid electrolyte counter parts. Lithium-ion-polymer has not caught on as quickly as some analysts had expected. Its superiority to other systems and low manufacturing costs has not been realized. No improvements in capacity gains are achieved. in fact, the capacity is slightly less than that of the standard lithium-ion battery. Lithium-ion-polymer finds its market niche in wafer-thin geometries, such as batteries for credit cards and other such applications. Advantages ï Very low profile. batteries resembling the profile of a credit card are feasible. ï Flexible form factor. manufacturers are not bound by standard cell formats. With high volume, any reasonable size can be produced economically. ï Lightweight. gelled electrolytes enable simplified packaging by eliminating the metal shell. ï Improved safety. more resistant to overcharge; less chance for electrolyte leakage. Limitations ï Lower energy density and decreased cycle count compared to lithium-ion. ï Expensive to manufacture. ï No standard sizes. Most cells are produced for high volume consumer markets. ï Higher cost-to-energy ratio than lithium-ion

Step 6: Powerbank Accesories

image 1. bundled with commercial Powerbanks.image 2- additional(option only) accesory to extend compatibility to any devices.

The World Needs Nuclear Power

Any serious effort to grapple with climate change must begin by reckoning with the math involved in transitioning to so-called net-zero carbon emissions—that is, the point at which humans are removing as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they are adding to it, stopping humankind’s contribution to climate change. This transition to green energy is complicated by the fact that even energy sources widely considered to be “green” have negative externalities, despite what many policymakers may wish. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, children as young as seven mine cobalt, which is needed to make electric car batteries. In China, which controls 80 percent of all solar panel manufacturing, the solar industry relies on Uyghur slave labor. To put it simply, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Although the International Energy Agency’s revised 2022 energy outlook raises some of these issues, it nonetheless lays out a path to net zero by 2050 that, as one would expect, maximizes wind and solar power while assuming countries can find and extract the required minerals at economic prices. But even under these optimistic assumptions, an often overlooked zero-carbon energy source still does much of the heavy lifting: to reach net zero by 2050, the IEA says nuclear energy capacity will need to double. Its model assumes an annual average of 30 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity coming online starting in the 2030s, and staying on that track until 2050.

Nuclear fission, the process that creates nuclear energy, produces abundant power while emitting essentially zero greenhouse gases, similar to wind, solar, and hydroelectric. over, it is a safe and proven technology that already provides over half of U.S. carbon-free energy generation while operating nonstop instead of at the whim of Mother Nature.

What would a doubling of nuclear power require? According to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. t he world would need to build 235 new reactors in the next eight years alone just to hit net zero by 2050. Since 440 reactors now operate globally and 60 new ones are under construction, the world would therefore need to construct and have online the equivalent of 180 more 1,000-megawatt reactors, or 25 more new reactors per year, by 2030, with further growth afterward to hit the 2050 target. This is a heavy lift, considering the many roadblocks that antinuclear groups put up to stop this zero-carbon power production, in addition to the lengthy permitting processes and the time and expense needed to bring a plant online.

There is also another hurdle in the way: the world’s largest multilateral green energy financier, the World Bank, has steadfastly refused to finance or co-finance nuclear projects. This self-imposed policy means that energy-hungry, developing countries have had to turn to authoritarian regimes for the financing and technology needed to build nuclear power plants. It is time for the bank to reverse this outdated, counterproductive policy, especially given its FOCUS on climate change mitigation. Countries should no longer be denied one of the key tools needed to solve the ambitious math of net zero.

RECONSIDERING NUCLEAR

Although a few countries, such as Austria and Australia, stubbornly remain opposed to nuclear power, Japan and France, which had planned to shut down a portion of their nuclear reactors, reversed course last spring after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Germany, which was scheduled to close all of its reactors by the end of 2022, temporarily halted the shutdown of its final two reactors to avoid energy shortfalls resulting from the war in Ukraine. Still other European countries, including Poland and Romania, are going further by committing to purchase nuclear reactors made in the United States. For similar reasons, the Czech Republic selected Westinghouse as one of three finalists (along with companies from France and South Korea) for a current tender for new nuclear generation. Even more noteworthy, developing countries, including Ghana, Kenya, and the Philippines, announced within the last three months that they intend to construct new nuclear power plants to meet their economic development and clean energy goals.

From the 1960s through the first decade of this century, U.S. firms were the largest exporters of nuclear technologies worldwide, but over the last decade, developing countries have looked to Russia and China for help building new nuclear energy projects. Russia’s principal nuclear supplier, Rosatom, has signed memorandums of agreement with over 30 countries to provide nuclear development assistance, and currently Russia is building nuclear reactors in Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, and Turkey. For its part, China has only exported its technology to Pakistan, but it is actively pursuing other projects around the world. Developing countries have had to turn to Russia and China after the World Bank made it clear in 2013 that it would continue not to fund any nuclear projects.

At the time, the bank’s president, Jim Yong Kim, effectively banned financing nuclear projects, saying “Nuclear power from country to country is an extremely political issue. The World Bank Group does not engage in providing support for nuclear power. We think that this is an extremely difficult conversation that every country is continuing to have.” His public Комментарии и мнения владельцев built on prior bank statements including one in 2009, when the bank said that financing nuclear “ would engender serious risks related to proliferation, safety, and waste disposal. ” recently in 2021, it argued that financing nuclear is “ not in its expertise. ” These justifications were inaccurate then and continue to be so today.

To begin with, the World Bank cannot blame its decision on a lack of expertise. The World Bank is part of the UN system and thus under the same umbrella as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose head, Rafael Grossi, has lobbi ed for the bank to end its ban. The bank can access this deep font of nuclear expertise in the same way it consults with outside experts and entities for projects in areas as diverse as air pollution management in Egypt, irrigation in Pakistan, and public administration modernization in Djibouti, not to mention more complex green energy projects all over the world, such as hydropower and geothermal engineering. National institutions, such as the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which do have nuclear expertise and have provided significant lending capabilities for nuclear projects, could also serve as a resource for the bank.

The other justifications the World Bank offers for its nuclear ban are just as specious. The IAEA has worked for over 70 years to establish a framework to prevent nonproliferation. This system includes a wide variety of safeguard measures, including real-time electronic monitoring, which provides an effective means to identify and prevent nuclear proliferation. Furthermore, civilian nuclear energy is not an easy gateway to nuclear weapons. The fuel generated from civilian light-water nuclear power plants, such as those in the United States, is not an effective source of potential weapons material. A country would require highly sophisticated and expensive capabilities to make it useful for military purposes.

What about other safety concerns? Opponents of nuclear power raise three famous nuclear disasters. The first is the Three Mile Island accident, which occurred in 1979 and was caused by deficient control room instrumentation and inadequate training on emergency procedures. While the event did result in the release of a small amount of radioactive gas—below background levels—the containment structure of the plant prevented a large release of radioactivity, and, according to the U.S. government, no one was killed or seriously injured as a result of the accident. Chernobyl, the most famous and devastating nuclear disaster, occurred in 1986. It was the result of a poor design (one that was not used outside the Soviet Union), reckless low power testing of the reactor without the review or approval of the designer, and a failure to warn the public about radioactive releases in a timely manner. Finally, the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Japan, in 2011, resulted from ignoring historic tsunami data and building the plant too close to the ocean where the needed safety equipment was vulnerable to flooding.

These three accidents could have been avoided. For additional context, 600 civilian nuclear power reactors have operated since the 1960s (not to mention hundreds more military reactors). All in all, this track record is very good, especially when compared with the effects from comparable forms of energy. Indeed, when considering deaths per unit of electricity generated, nuclear energy has resulted in 99.8 percent fewer than coal, 99.7 percent fewer than oil, and 97.6 percent fewer than gas. In addition, a 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research paper estimated that Germany’s planned nuclear phaseout would cost more than 1,100 additional deaths each year as a result of increased air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels. Germany, for the time being, has halted the closure of its final three nuclear power plants, thanks to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

In part, as a result of the lessons learned from the three accidents described above, the over 450 nuclear power reactors that make up today’s international nuclear industry have operated at exceptionally high safety levels under the watchful eyes of both national nuclear regulatory authorities, as well as the World Association of Nuclear Operators, a self-regulatory body. The industry has generally earned a well-regarded track record for safety, critical self-assessment, and a willingness to share best practices among all civilian nuclear peers worldwide.

Additionally, the latest generation of nuclear reactors being designed in the United States are smaller (typically a quarter or less of the size of reactors currently being marketed by Russia and China), easier to construct and finance, and possess enhanced levels of safety. These reactors are particularly desirable given that their size and cost make them more attractive to countries less able to afford 1,200-megawatt (or more) nuclear projects.

Finally, the concerns that the World Bank has raised about waste are also misguided, since nuclear fuel is the most highly regulated metal in the world as a result of the careful oversight by the civilian nuclear regulators of each nuclear power country. Whether it is stored in spent fuel pools at the reactors or in dry storage canisters away from the reactors, it has a track record of being effectively managed and stored; no civilian has been killed or even seriously injured from its storage. Although there have been significant political challenges to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site in Nevada, Finland will be opening its permanent waste repository in 2024 and will lead the way in demonstrating that used nuclear fuel can be safely managed underground, even for 100,000 years. France has been recycling used fuel since the 1960s and within several years will follow Finland’s lead in opening its own permanent repository. This not only takes advantage of reusing the 96 percent of the energy that remains after the fuel has been used in a reactor but has also significantly reduced France’s generation of high-level waste, including plutonium. Other opportunities to address this issue, including developments in deep borehole technology (where the fuel is disposed of four to five miles underground) and the ongoing deployment of nuclear reactor designs that burn used nuclear fuel also provide examples of technology developments that can safely address concerns about high-level radioactive waste.

FUND THE FUTURE

At last year’s UN climate conference, known as COP27, industrialized economies (except China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases) promised to pay developing countries for their loss and damage ” from climate change. Developing countries felt it was an important step, but these countries need something better: cheap, reliable, abundant en ergy, including from all types of green energy, particularly those with steady baseload power such as nuclear. As the Egyptian economist Abla Abdel Latif told a U.S. congressional delegation at COP, Africa wants and needs financing to develop badly needed power. Perhaps it is one of the reasons Egypt ended up taking a loan from Rosatom (and got locked into Russian technology for decades) for its new nuclear plant.

Instead of paying for “ loss and damage from climate change, which amounts to only pennies per person affected in the developing world, the World Bank and its funders should deploy those billions of dollars as low-interest loans for nuclear projects by secure, nonauthoritarian providers that will help these countries escape energy poverty with safe and reliable zero-carbon power.

In this effort, the bank could follow the lead of the United States, which finally ended its own ban on financing foreign nuclear projects in 2020, when the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) agreed to lend for nuclear projects because they are viewed as being renewable energy sources. As the DFC rightly said in its announcement: “This change will also offer an alternative to the financing of authoritarian regimes while advancing U.S. nonproliferation safeguards and supporting U.S. nuclear competitiveness.” Unfortunately, under the Biden administration, the DFC has yet to finance a single nuclear project.

The DFC should lean forward, as its colleagues at the Export-Import Bank of the United States have done, and provide funding for U.S.-sponsored nuclear projects internationally. This could encourage the World Bank to do the same. The United States should also push for the World Bank’s policy to be reversed, as proposed by Representative Patrick McHenry, a Republican from North Carolina and the incoming chair of the House Financial Services Committee. His bill, the International Nuclear Energy Financing Act, or H.R. 1646, is expected to be reintroduced this year.

Even the European Parliament redefined nuclear energy as green in a landmark vote in July 2022. By correctly changing the taxonomy of nuclear to environmentally friendly, European countries now have access to hundreds of billions in cheap loans and state subsidies. Thus, as Europe now has embraced nuclear (and even gas) as green, it continues to deny it to the developing world via its stance against nuclear at the World Bank and other multilateral regional development banks, ensuring Russia and China remain the only game in town.

In addition to making a massive contribution to reaching net zero, World Bank financing for nuclear projects would allow for a greater potential level of involvement by the IAEA to exercise more hands-on oversight during the life cycle of a nuclear project from conception through operations to decommissioning, which can range from 60 to 100 years. Today’s status quo is a lack of transparency on nuclear projects undertaken by China (in Pakistan) and Russia (in Iran), with the United States and Europe potentially being locked out of involvement with these programs for decades. Even if the bank provided financing only to assist in the creation of nuclear regulatory oversight activities for the host country seeking to build new nuclear generation, as opposed to funding the actual projects, it would increase Western involvement and enhance the global nonproliferation regime.

Similarly, funding nuclear research reactor projects that are involved with the production of radioisotopes, which have important medical uses, would create a triple win, and it would be akin to what U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower initiated during the Atoms for Peace Program in 1953. These projects could enable the establishment of independent, effective nuclear regulators; create an initial development project that could enhance indigenous nuclear capacity-building (including the development of local nuclear engineering and construction programs); and allow for the deployment of lifesaving health technologies. All of this could be accomplished in a manner fully consistent with maintaining nuclear safeguards.

An all-of-the-above green energy strategy is essential and means that much more nuclear power needs to happen, and quickly, for the world to stay anywhere close to a trajectory of net zero by 2050. This requires helping countries finance new projects. A good place to start is at the multilateral level via the World Bank, which could create new co-financing opportunities with the private sector as well as spur a change at the African Development Bank and the other multilateral regional development banks, in addition to the DFC and the Export-Import Bank. Given the reality of net-zero math and the change of heart about nuclear energy in Europe, the bank should have a robust discussion about its nuclear policy. It is a fortunate time for this debate to take place because the bank is seeking new ways to expand its lending capacity to address climate change. Changing the World Bank’s policy to provide funding for nuclear projects would be the quickest and easiest way to advance the net-zero effort in the developing world while also increasing security, safety, and prosperity.

Subscribe to Foreign Affairs to get unlimited access.

• Paywall-free reading of new articles and a century of archives
• Unlock access to iOS/Android apps to save editions for offline reading
• Six issues a year in print, online, and audio editions

DJ NORDQUIST is former U.S. Executive Director of the World Bank. She serves on the board of ClearPath, a clean energy advocacy group, and is a Senior Adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD is former Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He leads the energy section at the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and serves on the boards of ClearPath and the United States Nuclear Industry Council.

Wireless, Portable, and Rugged. A Look at the Portable Wireless Charging Pack

It’s wireless. It’s portable. It’s rugged. It’s the coolest power bank in the market, and it’s coming to Rokform soon.

How the Reactor Series Prioritizes Safety and Reliability Reading Wireless, Portable, and Rugged. A Look at the Portable Wireless Charging Pack 5 minutes Next Back To School Gift Guide 2018

A look at the power bank in our Reactor Series it’s wireless, portable, and rugged.

In the coming weeks, we’re introducing the Portable Wireless Charging Pack, the second release in our Reactor Series. It’s wireless. It’s portable. It’s rugged. It’s the coolest power bank in the market, and it’s coming to Rokform.com soon.

The Reactor Series is the result of over a year of hard work from our manufacturers, designers, and engineers. Our FOCUS has always been on creating a product full of rugged features that our customers love, and the Reactor Series does not fall short. A number of safety and reliability mechanisms have been tested and designed that, when combined with the many other product features, truly make the Portable Wireless Charging Pack stand out.

No more dragging around annoying cords to keep phones charged up all day. No more being tethered to a wall outlet for a quick charge/plug.

Product Specs

The only Rugged, Portable, Wireless Power Bank

The Reactor Charging Pack is perfectly sized for any activity, whether you’re charging up at home while watching Netflix, driving through town, or even outdoors and on the move. With similar dimensions to the iPhone X, the power bank is a dedicated portable solution that’s truly wireless.

With rugged drop protection and dust and water resistance, this power bank is built for Rokform customers new and old that value quality and durability in their electronics. Why spend money on a Qi charging pad that can’t move around when you do? The Portable Wireless Charging Pack isn’t just a portable solution. It functions as the all-around solution for wireless charging needs. And for those times that you need to charge up more than one device, the Charging Pack is capable of charging wirelessly and through the USB-A port at the same time.

A 4,000mAh reliable battery cell packs enough punch to keep your device charged up (and cord-free!) all day long. The Reactor power bank is a 10 Watt wireless charger capable of charging an iPhone X at the maximum charging rate. With 4,000 mAh battery power, the power bank can more than double the life of your iPhone X. A full iPhone X battery lasts up to 21 hours during wireless talk time and up to 12 hours of internet use, so double the charge goes a long way!

Fast charging through USB

One feature of the Reactor power bank is it’s fast charging capabilities on both inputs and outputs. It’s compatible with Qualcomm Quick Charge (QC) and Samsung Adaptive Fast Charging (AFC) standards. This includes the Samsung Galaxy (S6 through S9) and Note lines (5 through 8), as well as Google Pixel 2, among many others.

For the iPhone X, Apple promises up to 50% charge in 30 minutes with fast charging.

Safety and Reliability

The power bank has multiple-level safety protections in place to maintain the highest level of product and battery safety. Every critical component of the power bank has undergone performance and stress tests to ensure maximum product safety and protection against things like power failure.

For more detailed information on the safety tests and mechanisms of the power bank, and why these components are so important, check out last week’s blog, “How the Reactor Series Prioritizes Safety and Reliability.”

Signature Rokform Rugged Design

Reactor power bank can be used both indoors or outdoors, but is built with a rugged design to satisfy outdoor portable power needs.

Drop protection

Like Rokform phone cases, the Charging Pack boasts protection from any accidental drops and shocks. During our tests, we dropped the power bank from up to several feet without issue. We don’t recommend

Water and dust resistant

The Reactor Charging Pack is rated IP67—it’s fully protected from dust and can withstand water immersion between 15 centimeters and one meter for up to thirty minutes.

Reactor Series Product Releases

The first product of the Reactor Series, our Premium Car Charger, is now available for pre-order. The Premium Car Charger has dual USB ports that can charge two devices simultaneously. With 24 watts of total output and 2.4 amps each, both ports are packed with enough amperage to charge phones and tablets quickly. You can pre-order the charger on our website now. First orders are expected to ship early next month.

To stay up to date on all Reactor Series releases, subscribe to our interest list online.