Future of nuclear engineering?

<p>Hey everyone! Just wanted to hear your thoughts on the prospects of nuclear engineering grads, both the energy side and the radiological sciences side. I know some people are calling nuclear energy the only option feasible for the scale of energy demand we're going for see in the future. On the other hand, the vast majority of the us still seems to shy away from nuclear. Solar and wind are getting pretty significant investment and we've been seeing the efficiency improvements already. Especially with the ***ushima accident, nuclear (energy at least) doesn't look like it's going to be seeing a whole lot of love anytime soon. Fusion is obviously the holy Grail of the energy field, and I've read predictions of it surfacing around 2050-2060, but is that enough to try to pursue a degree/career in nuclear? The nuclear workforce is going to be pretty limited in the coming years (it's predicted that a hefty number of retirements are going to hit soon), so I guess they'll be demanded in a field of questionable outlooks?</p>

<p>I don't know much on the radiological sciences side of things, but with their ties to the medical industry, I'd have to imagine things are going pretty well. Anyway, I'm just trying to get a better idea of what nuclear has to offer as I'm deciding between schools because it seems like a fascinating subject, I just didn't know where it was going down the road. Thanks again everyone!</p>

<p>Perhaps it is not a coincidence that UC Berkeley offers officially encouraged joint majors in Nuclear Engineering along with Electrical, Mechanical, Materials, or Chemical Engineering. Someone doing Nuclear Engineering can hedge his/her job and career prospects with one of the other kinds of engineering.</p>

<p>Majority of the US Navy vessels are nuclear powered and it’s the future of energy. Isn’t there a figure out there that says there is enough uranium in Earth to provide energy for ~10,000 years. Anyway, don’t let the media hype from these news outlets scare you. Nuclear is here to stay.</p>

<p>But are there really research positions for things like fusion? And yeah, it’s this or mechE for me probably.</p>

<p>I say go Nuclear. Yes, there are research positions and will be more and more as fusion becomes closer to a reality. Of course, you have to be strong in the field to get a good research position, but if it’s what you really want to do then the opportunities should be good.</p>

<p>Nuclear is definitely our future energy source. That being said, I wouldn’t go near the industry right now… I still think the ‘future’ is still a ways off.</p>

<p>Bump bump bump</p>

<p>The only thing really getting in the way of the proliferation of nuclear power is public opinion. However, I’d think that most people who understand the implications of nuclear power and the potential of a nuclear accident tend to see it as the future of the power in the US and the world. </p>

<p>From what I’ve heard on this board, it is a very niche field and a lot of power plants hire MechE’s and EE’s. The ultimate thing is, however, to do what you find interesting and enjoyable.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Really? I call most things that fit that description hobbies. Unless there’s a strong demand for it, I wouldn’t try to make a hobby into a career.</p>

<p>Yes, NucE majors probably have a shot at nuclear medicine and aerospace jobs (think: radiation hardening), but I’d say there are other fields that are equally qualified.</p>

<p>

I agree 100%. Don’t underestimate the necessity of public support.</p>

<p>What about natural gas and clean coal? Won’t those be big competitors with nuclear? And if engineers figure out how to make solar/wind more cost effective, that could be competition as well.</p>

<p>Well wind and solar are definitely going to be part of any energy solution in the future, but they simply don’t produce as much as nuclear does/can, especially when you start factoring how much space they take up. I don’t know the numbers off of the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure the worlds largest solar and wind plants are measured at hundreds of MW’s, if that. Coal and nuclear easily put out thousands of MW’s, without requiring the immense amount of land that the two other renewables currently do. Simply looking at solar and wind to solve our (growing) energy demand just doesn’t look feasible.</p>

<p>Mgo^, they aren’t yet feasible but with they are fairly nascent technologies without the industrial power of coal and oil. I’m guessing the only reason nuclear power is viable is due to military interest, powering submarines and such. However, due to a US regulation called the Renewable Portfolio Standard, US power companies are pretty much forced to use a certain percentage of wind, solar, and other renewables. So, even if they aren’t feasible in the free market, legislation has pretty much reshaped the market to include renewables.</p>

<p>Haha I’m not trying to bash wind or solar (if I went MechE, I’d probably work with them), but I feel like you run into similar problems with them as we already do with coal. In order to prepare for excessively high peak loads, we have to build extra coal plants that run, for the most part, without a purpose. Only when energy demands reach a certain point do they actually come into play, but theyve been running continuously just in case. Nuclear can adjust (to my knowledge) the rate of the controlled fission reaction and subsequently the output power. Solar and wind would run into the same sort of issue since their output is dependent on the environment not our energy demands. And then the problem of what happens when the wind isn’t blowing or at night when the sun isn’t shining. Are these legitimate concerns? (I may very well just be ignorant haha)</p>

<p>Eventually, mankind will have to turn to nuclear energy (assuming no knew unforeseeable breakthroughs). But whether that is in our lifetimes, that’s difficult to say.</p>

<p>The fact is, one nuclear power plant will outproduce all wind sources combined, but the “green-friendly” nature of our times will put a damper on nuclear-heavy near-future.</p>

<p>It’s like many other careers of this time—uncertain. We can’t know how it will fare in the near future, but it certainly will not disappear altogether.</p>

<p>I’m mostly just trying to consider the potential of a field like nuclear engineering over a less specialized discipline like MechE. Energy/sustainability will likely be my focus, so it’s basically just a choice as to which aspect of it I address. Making cars more efficient, zero emission homes, more efficient appliances, etc all interest me. Just by going into nuclear engineering, I’d be looking at intelligent energy production rather than intelligent energy usage. Either way I believe I’ll enjoy what I do, I just wanted to see what sort of prospects nuclear research or industry might have in my working lifetime.</p>