A battery roughly the size of a sugar cube, with no moving parts and no need for recharging, just produced electricity from nuclear waste in a university lab. Engineers at Ohio State University built the prototype by pairing a scintillator crystal with a tiny photovoltaic cell, creating a device that converts gamma radiation from spent nuclear fuel into a small but steady trickle of power. Their results, published in the journal Optical Materials: X, show microwatt-level output under real irradiation conditions, enough to run a low-power sensor for years or even decades if the hardware holds up.
That “if” matters. The device works in the lab, but no one has yet proven it can survive prolonged radiation exposure without degrading. Still, the concept addresses a genuine problem: in places like spent fuel pools, waste storage tunnels, and decommissioning sites, replacing a dead battery can mean sending a human into a high-radiation zone or shutting down monitoring systems that regulators require to stay on.
How the device actually works
The core mechanism is straightforward. Gamma rays from a radioactive source strike a scintillator, a crystal that absorbs high-energy radiation and re-emits it as visible light. That light hits a photovoltaic cell (the same basic technology in a solar panel), which converts it into electric current. The whole assembly fits inside roughly 4 cubic centimeters.
The Ohio State team, working out of the university’s Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, tested the prototype against two well-characterized gamma sources: cesium-137 and cobalt-60. The facility’s Co-60 irradiator delivers dose rates in the kilorad-per-hour range, comparable to conditions near actual waste containers. Because those irradiation parameters are documented and reproducible, other research groups could subject similar devices to the same fields and compare results directly.
To put the power output in perspective: a microwatt is one millionth of a watt. That will never charge a phone or light a room. But it is enough to run certain types of environmental sensors, corrosion monitors, or low-data-rate telemetry nodes, exactly the kind of instruments needed in nuclear facilities where human access is limited and conventional batteries eventually die.
Nuclear batteries are not new, but this approach is different
The idea of harvesting energy from radioactive decay dates back decades. Betavoltaic cells, which convert beta particles (electrons) from isotopes like tritium or nickel-63 into current, have been commercially available in niche applications since the 1970s. NASA’s deep-space probes rely on radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) that turn heat from plutonium-238 decay into electricity. The Voyager spacecraft, launched in 1977, still transmit data using RTGs nearly 50 years later.
What distinguishes the Ohio State device is its energy source. Rather than requiring a purpose-made isotope like plutonium-238 (which is expensive and scarce), it harvests gamma radiation from existing nuclear waste, material that is already sitting in storage and already emitting energy that goes unused. The engineering challenge was building a converter small and efficient enough to be practical at that scale, and the published data suggests the team cleared that bar at the prototype level.
A parallel effort: diamond batteries from reactor graphite
A separate research program at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom is pursuing a related but distinct path. Bristol researchers, working with the UK Atomic Energy Authority, have built a prototype diamond battery powered by carbon-14 extracted from irradiated nuclear graphite, the material used as a moderator in older reactor designs. Carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,730 years, which in theory could give a battery an extraordinarily long operational life.
The carbon-14 supply chain has some supporting evidence. Peer-reviewed studies have shown that carbon-14 tends to concentrate near the outer surfaces of graphite blocks in reactor cores, which could simplify extraction. Separate laboratory work on graphite from the Oldbury Reactor in the UK measured and separated carbon-14 fractions in irradiated Magnox graphite, distinguishing between surface deposits and carbon-14 locked deeper in the crystal lattice. That fractionation research matters because it determines how much usable isotope can actually be recovered from a given block of waste graphite before processing it into battery material.
An important caveat: the Bristol work has been announced through institutional press releases, not peer-reviewed publications with independently verified performance data such as energy density, conversion efficiency, or degradation rates. The graphite studies, meanwhile, were conducted for waste management purposes, not to validate battery output. The full pipeline from waste graphite block to finished diamond battery cell has not been documented end to end in peer-reviewed literature as of June 2026.
The gaps that still need closing
For the Ohio State prototype, the biggest unknown is durability. Scintillator crystals can yellow and lose transparency under prolonged gamma bombardment. Photovoltaic cells degrade when exposed to high-energy particles over time. The published study confirms the device works under acute irradiation, but no data yet shows how it performs after months or years of continuous exposure. The “decades” framing in discussions of this technology is based on the half-lives of the isotopes involved (about 30 years for Cs-137, about 5.3 years for Co-60), not on demonstrated device endurance.
Shielding presents another practical challenge. Gamma sources like Cs-137 and Co-60 require lead or concrete barriers to protect nearby workers and electronics. The published research does not specify total system mass once shielding is included, which could turn a sugar-cube-sized battery into a much bulkier assembly. Near existing waste casks, ambient shielding may already be in place, but standalone deployments would need their own protection.
Regulatory questions apply to both the Ohio State and Bristol approaches. Devices containing or powered by radioactive materials face licensing, transport, and disposal rules that vary by jurisdiction and by isotope. Neither team has published details on how their batteries would meet those requirements at commercial scale. Who would be allowed to own and service such devices? How would they be tracked? What happens at end of life? These are not abstract concerns; they are the kind of questions that have kept other promising nuclear technologies confined to laboratories for years.
What this means for the sensors that watch over nuclear waste
The practical value proposition is narrow but real. Nuclear waste storage sites already need continuous monitoring: corrosion sensors on casks, structural health instruments on containment buildings, radiation detectors that feed data to regulators. Today, those sensors typically run on conventional batteries or wired power, both of which require periodic human intervention in environments where human access is expensive, slow, and sometimes hazardous.
A device that draws energy from the very radiation it is meant to monitor could, in principle, eliminate that maintenance cycle entirely. The waste is already there. The gamma flux is already there. The Ohio State work shows that a compact converter can tap into that flux and produce usable electricity. The Bristol and graphite studies show that long-lived isotopes embedded in solid waste materials can, in principle, be repurposed into similarly durable power sources.
What remains to be proven is not the physics but the engineering: whether these prototypes can survive real-world conditions over years, fit within regulatory frameworks, and deliver enough value in their specific niches to justify the complexity of working with nuclear materials. Until long-term endurance tests and full lifecycle analyses are published, the most grounded reading is that nuclear-waste-powered batteries are a technically plausible extension of established radiation science, backed by early experimental data at the microwatt level, and aimed squarely at a class of problems where no conventional battery does the job well.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
