Skip to main content

Berkeley Gets Ready for the Next Generation

Seaborg and Kennedy enjoy some cookies.

Sometimes, it’s a good idea to take a step back from the news of the day and think more about the larger implications of a subject that interests us. For Nuclear Notes readers, that means nuclear energy.

And for me, that means the chance a reactivated industry gives a lot of really smart people to work on making nuclear energy technology the best it can be. It’s a chance for America to rebuild some of its technological edge and enhance our global competiveness. 

One of the centers of excellence in nuclear engineering has traditionally been the University of California at Berkeley. It produced some of the greatest breakthroughs and some of the top scientists in the field: Glenn Seaborg, Ernest Lawrence, and his brother, John Lawrence, to name just a few.

Seaborg, in particular, has the kind of life story that makes you question what you’ve been doing with your time: a Nobel prize before he was 40; section head on the Manhattan project; advisor to presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Reagan; the discoverer of “countless” atomic isotopes and ten (ten!) elements, including plutonium and, yes, seaborgium. You know you’ve made it, when you get an element in the periodic table named after you.

In the light of this legacy, it was nice to read the lead story on the UC Berkeley engineering news site last week about “Rethinking Nuclear Power,” and the nuclear fission research being done today at the university. They interviewed Brian Wirth, an engineer at UC Berkeley, who had some interesting things to say about the restart of the domestic nuclear energy industry.

“The 104 nuclear plants now in operation represent the largest source of carbon-free electricity in the country,” says Wirth, associate professor of nuclear engineering. “The nuclear pendulum is swinging back, but we have to work really hard because, in some cases, we’ve let the technology go dormant.”

One of the things that first struck me when I joined the nuclear industry was the public perception—which I shared at the time—that nuclear technology is stagnant or, at least, moves very slowly. And while new generations of reactors may not keep pace with new iterations of your iPod, Blackberry or Web browser—reactor technology is by no means stagnant. Right now most operating reactors worldwide are Gen II. The new reactors being currently deployed, like AREVA’s EPR and Westinghouse’s AP1000, are Gen III+. Gen IV is a bit further down the road with commercial introduction “between 2015 and 2030 or beyond,” according to the Generation IV International Forum.

When they approach a new generation of reactors, nuclear scientists, like all good scientists, think about ways to improve them. That means working to find ways to increase fuel efficiency (in this case, uranium), reduce waste (used nuclear fuel), conserve water and reduce the overall environmental impact of the technology—just like other researchers do with fossil fuels, biofuels and other renewables. Wirth discusses some of these future directions in Gen IV research: 

“As opposed to the light-water design used in existing fission reactors, many of the proposed fourth-generation nuclear reactors will use a closed fuel cycle, which some say could increase uranium efficiency from a few percentage points to in excess of 90 percent, essentially destroying more radioactive waste than it produces.”

Earlier, DOE Secretary Steven Chu, former professor of physics at Berkeley, hinted at wringing greater fuel efficiency out of uranium in an interview with the WSJ:

“We are also accelerating our R&D efforts into other innovative reactor technologies. This includes … advanced reactor designs that will harness much more of the energy from uranium.”

In addition to Wirth, Per Peterson, Berkeley professor of nuclear physics and recent appointee to the blue ribbon commission, has been deeply involved in nuclear fission research at Berkeley. On the Berkeley nuclear physics department’s home page, Peterson talks about Gen IV’s potential for providing clean transportation fuels and drinking water. 

“Work is underway to develop advanced fuel cycle and Generation IV reactor technologies that can consume nuclear wastes while providing economic and secure supplies of electricity, low-carbon transportation fuels, and desalinated water.”

Gen IV is still decades away, but it’s good to know that until then Berkeley, and other nuclear physicists at our national labs and universities across the country, will be taking up the work of driving this technology forward and working to make nuclear energy safer, cleaner and more efficient than ever. America, and the world, stand to benefit.


One way to get a parking space on campus at Berkeley? Win the Nobel Prize. Seriously.



Charles Barton said…
Is Generation IV really decades away? With a concerted effort we could see commercial deployment in as few as 10 years. india's commercial FBR will come on line next year and will quickly be followed by serial manufacture. India plans to have over 300 FBRs by 2050. If India can do that, the United States can have commercial fast or thermal breeders by 2020, and build hundreds by 2030.
Sterling Archer said…
GenIV will seriously test the materials science and metallurgy community. Try the Jun 2009 "JOM" (Journal of Metals) or the January 2009 and April 2008 "Materials Research Society Bulletin".
David Bradish said…
Charles, DOE sent its NGNP report to Congress several days ago. It in, they have a schedule of deployment and licensing over the next 10 years for a 4th generation reactor as well as a milestone for a unit to be operating by 2021. I've been looking for a link to the report but haven't found it yet.
TJ Swanek said…
Charles & Co.,
Here’s the NGNP link:
gunter said…
that's radioactive as well as reactivated, I hasten to mention...
Sterling Archer said…
Gunter --

Your pronoun ("that") is missing its antecedent. To what do you refer?
Anonymous said…
Gunter means the whole world is radioactive, it's an essential force of nature that contributed to the evolution of the diverse life on this planet...

He finally realizes radioactivity is natural, green, renewable, and not to be zealously feared and persecuted.

It's even been endorsed by the current Democratic Regime!

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…