The story of our campus’ nuclear reactor first began with the Atoms for Peace Conference on December 8, 1953, in which President Dwight D. Eisenhower advocated for the use of nuclear power in reactors instead of weapons. At the time, the president of Penn State was Milton Eisenhower, the brother of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Consequently, once the project for a research reactor was approved by a board of trustees at Penn State, it received quick government approval as well. Construction began later in 1953, and the reactor was commissioned on February 22, 1955. The reactor received fuel in July of that year and became the first American university reactor to reach criticality in August.  

Initially a Materials Testing Reactor (MTR) only capable of operating at 100-200 kW of thermal output, Penn State’s reactor was upgraded to a TRIGA (Training, Research, Isotopes, General Atomics) reactor in the 1960s. This meant that the reactor could operate on a steady state thermal power of 1 MW and pulse up to 2000 MW. During this time period, the facility also received renovations to incorporate hot cells, for the handling of highly radioactive sources, and a gamma irradiation pool. Later, in the 1990s, the facility was improved with a digitalized control system, and the capability to manipulate the position of the core in the reactor pool. Recently in the past few years, further renovations were made to incorporate more learning spaces and provide more instruments for neutron scattering research.  

As a TRIGA reactor, the Penn State Breazeale Reactor and the Radiation Science and Engineering Center (RSEC) as a whole serve three main purposes. The first is to educate, by providing tours to the public and by providing the opportunity for students (like me) to complete the training to become a certified reactor operator. The second is research – resources at the facility are used to study the nano-scale structure of molecules and observe how different materials respond to radiation. The third is to produce radioactive isotopes for use in medicine and other research facilities.  

If you want to see the Radiation Science and Engineering Center first-hand, come visit us during the annual open house on parent’s weekend or schedule a group tour at the Radiation Science and Engineering Center’s website. 

Concept art of an underwater radioisotope energy system

Nuclear power has been linked to maritime exploration almost since its origin as a viable energy source. Today, the company Zeno Power looks to revisit the underwater applications of nuclear energy in a novel way to promote exploration and defense of maritime territory.  

The DEPTHS (Distributed Energy Provided Throughout the Seas) program, sponsored by the Department of Defense, aims to demonstrate a distributed power grid that can be deployed on the sea floor, using a radioisotope energy system.  

Unlike a typical nuclear reactor, which produces energy by actively inducing a nuclear fission reaction in fissile elements like uranium, a radioisotope harnesses the passive heat given off through radioactive decay of artificial radioisotopes, such as plutonium or strontium. This means that, although the total power output of one of these generators is much lower than that of a reactor, a radioisotope thermal generator requires no operator and little maintenance and will be able to produce a constant power output for many years.  

In fact, these characteristics of radioisotope energy systems make them well-suited for use in extraterrestrial exploration, and these types of systems have been used in NASA probes and rovers. Zeno Power will also be pursuing the development of a system for use in satellites.  

Moreover, these characteristics also make a radioisotope energy system perfect for deployment underwater. If the DEPTHS program succeeds, it will allow companies and governments to develop nodes for energy generation and distribution at the bottom of the ocean. This could help power sensory systems to monitor and survey the depths of the ocean and could pave the way for autonomous undersea vehicles, which would be able to dock and charge at radioisotope energy nodes.  

Whether used to explore the depths of our planet, or the heights of space, the development of radioisotope energy systems will help humanity reach new frontiers. 

Sources and further readings: 

Zeno wins $7.5M contract for underwater radioactive power system (geekwire.com) 

Zeno demonstrates radioisotope heat source for off-grid power (geekwire.com) 

Vogtle Unit 3 during construction (Image: F.D. Thomas)

Earlier this year, reactor unit 3 at Georgia’s Vogtle nuclear plant came online, the first built-from-scratch nuclear reactor in the US to begin to do so in thirty years. The Department of Energy states that the startup of Vogtle unit 3 signifies that “The United States is all-in on new nuclear.” However, the road to startup has not been easy. 

The Westinghouse-designed unit, which came online in July of this year, has the capacity to produce 1,100 megawatts and power half a million homes and businesses. Unit four, which began fueling also in July of this year, will have a similar capacity after its startup in fourth quarter 2023 or first quarter 2024. This seems like a great benefit to Georgia’s power grid, yet the construction of these reactors

has caused agitation among consumers.  

Construction for the units began all the way back in 2009, with the units initially intended for startup in 2016. However, shortages and technical problems riddled the project, causing a multitude of delays and ultimately postponing startup to 2023/2024. Additionally, the project went way over budget. Initially proposed to cost a total of $14 billion, the project now stands at a total expense of $35 billion.  

This expense during construction is detrimental to the overall utility of the plant: initially the reactors were meant to bring cheap electricity to consumers, however residents near the plant will now only see an increase in utility cost in order to make up for the accumulated cost of the plant.  

What does this mean for the US nuclear industry in the future? First, although Vogtle 3 marks a significant point in the United States’ ability to realize large reactor construction projects, the excessive cost and time required of the project puts barriers in the way of future utilities constructing large reactor projects.  

This means that going forward, the nuclear energy utilities in the US will have more of a focus on small modular reactors (SMRs) and microreactors. These types of reactors can provide a flexible energy supply, not of the same magnitude as the current large-scale reactors, but with shorter construction times and a significantly lower up-front cost.  

Still with the challenges faced by the Vogtle units, there will be challenges to implementing more forms of nuclear energy in the US. In the same way nuclear energy is needed to power our society, our society is needed to power nuclear energy. It is up to all of us to advocate for the future of nuclear energy and build a sustainable world.  

Sources and further reading: 

5 Things You Should Know About Plant Vogtle | Department of Energy 

The first US nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia | AP News 

Picture the futuristic space engines so common in science fiction: fusion cores, pulse drives, hyperdrives. Although these exact forms of interplanetary propulsion remain works of fiction, recent efforts by NASA are attempting to bridge the gap to make faster space travel a reality. These efforts rely on the concept of NTP, or Nuclear Thermal Propulsion.  

Unlike previous concepts of a nuclear-powered rocket, which relied on the detonation of small atomic explosions to create thrust, NTP uses the sustained heat from a nuclear reaction to propel a separate fuel. Specifically, a uranium powered fission reactor generates heat in the same manner as terrestrial nuclear reactors, and this heats up supercooled hydrogen to the point where its thermal energy becomes great enough to achieve a significant thrust out the back of the rocket.  

Thrust from an NTP engine can range between two to five times greater than that of a chemically propelled rocket, meaning a spacecraft using this form of propulsion could theoretically reach Mars in only around two months instead of the current seven.  

To reach this technological advancement, NASA partnered with DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) to put a demonstration NTP rocket in orbit by 2026. The project, tiled DRACO (Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations) consists of two eighteen-month tracks, Track A and B, to create the reactor and create the spacecraft, respectively. General Atomics has been contracted to work on Track A, while Lockheed Martin and Blue Origin contribute to Track B.  

If the DRACO project proceeds according to plan, the nuclear industry will be able to achieve a new level of utility in space travel. Humanity will be able to attain an unprecedented level of mobility in space, and the possibility to have human settlers on Mars in our lifetime may finally be realized. 

Diagram of a Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Engine (Image: NASA)

Sources and Further Reading: 

NASA, DARPA to launch nuclear rocket to orbit by early 2026 | Space 

US military picks 3 companies to test nuclear propulsion in cislunar space | Space 

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Systems | Glenn Research Center | NASA 

It is not an over-exaggeration to say that if the field of nuclear energy is to advance, the one thing it most needs is HALEU. But what is HALEU, and why is it so important? 

HALEU stands for High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium. It is a fuel type for nuclear reactors which contains between 5 and 20% of Uranium 235 (U235 being the main isotope used to produce energy in a nuclear reactor’s fission reactions). Currently, all the nuclear reactors in the US run on LEU (Low Enriched Uranium), which only consists of 3-5% Uranium 235.  

The reason the nuclear industry is not complacent with simple LEU fuel instead of HALEU is because a large volume of LEU is required to get to the point where the fuel is reactive enough to produce energy in a reactor. This is fine for our current reactors, however the next generation of reactor — promising to be cheaper, safer, longer lasting, and quicker to construct – require fuel to fit into a smaller volume, meaning that this fuel needs to be HALEU to produce energy.  

Currently, there are two ways to produce HALEU. Downbending is the most common, where High-Enriched Uranium (HEU) is mixed with uranium of a lower concentration to acquire the right assay. This requires the least technology; however, it relies on the US’ limited stores of HEU. Enrichment is the more sustainable process, where the concentration of U235 in natural uranium is increased to the levels of HALEU. However, this process requires technology which is only possessed by two US companies. Similarly, this technology is strictly regulated, as increasing the concentration of U235 past 20% increases its viability for nuclear weapon use.  

Therefore, what is now imperative for the industry is for policy makers and industry leaders to come together and prioritize research, development, and investment in HALEU technology. Taking swift action will provide safer, more efficient nuclear energy, and by investing in this energy the world will be better suited to tackle its climate goals.  

Concentrations of Uranium-235 in varying fuel classifications (image: HALEU Energy Fuel) 

 Sources and Further Reading:

High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) – NRC

What is High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU)? – DOE

VVER fuel assembly (Image: Westinghouse Electric Company) 

Amid the conflict of the Russo-Ukrainian War, Ukraine remained paradoxically reliant on Russia for the fuel for over half of their energy production. That was, until earlier this month.  

Nuclear power in Ukraine provides a sustainable, baseload power source to the grid with no carbon emissions. However, its main drawback is that all four of Ukraine’s nuclear plants were built by Russian manufacturers. Although some of these reactors, VVER-1000 units, can be supplied with fuel from the west, Russian companies still monopolize products for VVER-440 units like the Rivne plant.  

In September 2020, initial contracts were produced to diversify the fuel supply for Russian-built reactors in Ukraine and other European countries, namely VVER-440 units. With the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, these efforts were hastened. Ukraine partnered with Pittsburg-based company Westinghouse for the design and manufacture of compatible fuels, and earlier this month their efforts were finally realized.  

In early September, Westinghouse’s VVER-440 fuel arrived at the Rivne plant in northwestern Ukraine and was successfully used in refueling the reactor. This represents a significant milestone for Ukraine’s energy independence, as there are now no remaining Ukrainian nuclear plants with reliance on Russian suppliers. 

Similarly, this is a point of significance for other former Soviet-Union countries in control of VVER-440 reactors. Currently 16 VVER-440 reactor units are operational in the European Union, and a fuel supply from Westinghouse can signify further economic independence from Russia.  

Looking forward, Ukraine plans to continue to supply their reactors with Westinghouse fuel, and later to manufacture their own fuel domestically using Westinghouse technology. Additional EU-controlled reactors will have the option to use Westinghouse or Russian-supplied fuel, creating a competitive market and giving countries more agency in their nuclear programs. And overall, this competitive market will drive further innovation in the nuclear industry, a great benefit as the world strives towards net-zero carbon emissions.  

Sources and Further Reading:

How a US company is helping Ukraine fuel nuclear plants

Westinghouse VVER-440 fuel loaded into reactor

On August 24th of this year, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan began to discharge wastewater into the Pacific Ocean. Yes, radioactive water is being poured into the ocean right now. But it’s not as bad as it sounds.

First, we must examine why it is necessary to discharge the water from the plant. Over the past 12 years, following the Fukushima disaster, fresh water has been continually pumped over the plant’s broken reactor core to keep it cool. In the process, that water accumulated radioactive elements and was thus stored on-site in containment tanks. However, these tanks take up space needed for equipment for further decommissioning of the plant, and they pose a threat in the event of another natural disaster. Therefore the safest solution is to somehow release all of this wastewater.

Before releasing the wastewater into the ocean, it is cleaned of all heavy radionuclides, through simple yet intensive processes. However, after this decontamination, tritium, a radioisotope of hydrogen, and carbon-14 still remain in the water, as they are common elements and nearly impossible to separate from their non-radioactive counterparts found in normal water. Therefore, as a final measure, fresh seawater is mixed in with the wastewater to dilute these radioisotopes. Samples taken from the International Atomic Energy Agency conclude that these processes have reduced the radioactivity of the discharge to well less than the operational limit of 1500 Becquerel / Liter. For comparison, the World Health Organization only sets regulations on drinking water above 10,000 Becquerel / Liter.

The water being released in the ocean is very safe, safe enough to drink, so why is there such a pushback? First, some studies argue that the food chain in the ocean may concentrate radioisotopes into larger animals, causing a negative environmental impact. However, this has not been proven. I believe the main reason for public resistance is a lack of information, particularly information on different levels and types of radiation and the extensive processes taken to ensure a safe release of wastewater. Hopefully this blog will be able to provide that information and prove the value of nuclear energy, and hopefully you now know that there is no reason to be concerned about the Fukushima wastewater release.

Diagram of the wastewater release process (credit: TEPCO)

Sources and Further Readings:

Is Fukushima wastewater release safe? What the science says

Japan starts discharging treated water into the sea

The science behind the Fukushima wastewater release