<p>With the push for green energy, it seems like the solar and wind energy fields are growing the fastest. However, I have heard that nuclear power is a necessary (if only temporary) step to bridge the gap between our current dependence on fossil fuels to a greener economy. Is Nuclear Engineering still worth pursuing in this economy?</p>
<p>Very hard to answer your question, I would find some Nuc E profs or leaders in industry. </p>
<p>Scientists, politicians, and the general public have differing idea’s. (of course the scientist’s is the correct one)</p>
<p>The little research I’ve done on nuclear engineering suggests that the field is relatively stable due to the balance between available positions and incoming nuclear engineers. According to the BLS Handbook, nuclear engineering will experience 11% growth over the decade due to current engineers seeking retirement. There’s also the nuclear medicine aspect of nuclear engineering (PET scans) and related matters.</p>
<p>If you ask me, I think the US will have to build some new fission plants soon (didn’t the Obama Admin approve plans for new plants recently?). And if fusion is ever a reality, expect some fusion plants popping up in the wealthiest states.</p>
<p>One thing I found interesting is that there are more mechanical engineers working in the nuclear industry than nuclear engineers. Perhaps you might find this interesting as well.</p>
<p>Nuclear should be highly considered … the green energy (wind, solar) are only a temporary fix in terms of long term solution. Someday in the future, sunlight and wind may not be depended on.</p>
<p>So is it worth it to specialize in nuclear engineering? Or just go for a general major like EECS?</p>
<p>I would say no, </p>
<p>if you want to keep nuc E as an option I’d suggest ME undergrad. If it’s not that important than ME or EE would be fantastic…you’ll have so many options man…those two are just great you can’t go wrong</p>
<p>Without government money backing it up, “green energy” would be nothing more than the hobby of a few California venture capitalists and off-the-grid weirdos. That’s because there is no money in it, it is more expensive and generally inferior to oil. I’m not making a political statement here, I’m just pointing out an economic reality. If “green energy” were going to be so good for the economy, there’d be no need for government subsidies and regulations to help it along–investors would develop it of their own accord, to make money.</p>
<p>I don’t expect this fad to last very long, it’s simply not sustainable economically for the government to continue throwing money into a furnace in order to buy votes, or worse–control the economy.</p>
<p>Again, I’m not making a political point, I’m making an economic one, I’m also an econ nerd in addition to being an engineering nerd. :-)</p>
<p>To show I’m not being political, let me point out that nuclear power is the same as “green energy,” it is something that only exists because the government backs it, and doesn’t make economic sense.</p>
<p>[Nuclear</a> Energy: Risky Business | Jerry Taylor | Cato Institute: Commentary](<a href=“http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9740]Nuclear”>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9740)</p>
<p>From my point of view, the entire energy field is very interesting and lucrative (as long as one does not bank on oil for the long term). The reason solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources are inferior to oil is because oil is still relatively cheap to obtain. A good portion of the oil utilized globally comes from “gushers” (in oversimplified terms, oil that comes out after digging a hole for it). However, the amount of oil coming from other sources (tar sands, shales, deep ocean fields) is steadily increasing; that oil is not cheap to get (because it is not pure, meaning, it has to be separated from other elements in order to be used).</p>
<p>Coal is also cheap but extremely dirty and we might see less coal plants in the US in the next 30 years. I think the biggest growth in the energy field will be an increase on the use of natural gas (another hydrocarbon but cleaner than coal and petroleum). Wind, solar, nuclear, etc. might also experience increases but those sources will probably vary by location (solar will thrive in the southwest while wind/tidal/geothermal might thrive in the northeast).</p>
<p>What’s funny is that no one person or governing body needs to make the decision. Left to their own devices, prices will decide what gets used. The only possible rationale for using state powers to intervene is because <em>you</em> prefer something different from what the market–and hence most consumers–want.</p>
<p>And I agree with you. However, you and I are reasonable enough to understand that government will get involved in “price setting” one way or the other.</p>
<p>I still think the prospects for nuclear power (and nuclear engineering) are good. If fusion energy comes into play the prospects are even better. The only problem with nuclear engineering is that there seems to be a lot of red tape to be cut and political garbage to wade through.</p>
<p>Nuclear energy <em>is</em> the main form of practical green energy. Solar may be a decent chunk of our energy supply some day, but wind energy faces too many diseconomies of scale and something else will have to provide the backbone. Nuclear is the only real candidate for that right now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Using the same logic, (K-12) schools should serve junk food for lunch instead of healthy foods because it’s the cheaper alternative.</p>
<p>If the government starts implementing carbon taxes, Nuclear won’t only make logical sense, it will also make the most economic sense.</p>
<p>The reason Nuclear has to be government supported is that there’s no good way to insure for the risk of a Nuclear plant, thus the government basically takes on that role. With the current push toward green energy, nuclear, with zero carbon emissions and strong bipartisan support will win out over far less reliable wind and solar energy.</p>
<p>Also the Nuclear Workforce is extremely aged, with estimates of up to 50% to retire in the next decade. The potential for a nuclear career has never been greater.</p>
<p>“Using the same logic, (K-12) schools should serve junk food for lunch instead of healthy foods because it’s the cheaper alternative.”</p>
<p>Care to explain what “logic” you’re talking about? Have you ever studied economics, and I don’t just mean taking a class or two to fulfill a requirement?</p>
<p>Explain in detail.</p>
<p>Your argument was based on what made more sense economically, which I assume meant cheaper. What I’m trying to get at is cheaper isn’t always better. If you meant otherwise, please explain.</p>
<p>Dude, on a new Gallup tracking poll, public support topped 60% for nuclear energy and in the past decade there’s been a general trend in this direction. The field is gonna get hot.</p>
<p>“Your argument was based on what made more sense economically, which I assume meant cheaper. What I’m trying to get at is cheaper isn’t always better. If you meant otherwise, please explain.”</p>
<p>Cheaper <em>is</em> better, all other factors aside. It’s more efficient, it means getting more with less. Economists have a saying, “ceteris paribus,” meaning all else being equal. But things are not always equal so I am not using any logic where cheapest is necessarily the best.</p>
<p>With energy, we just want to get our cars, trucks, boats, trains, and planes around, and have juice coming out of the socket. It could come from monkeys on treadmills for all we care, we just want the energy. Engineers and entrepreneurs, left to their own devices, work on ways of getting energy. Some ways produce more output with less input, are cheaper, and are magnets for investors. Other kinds, like nuclear and so-called “green” energy products, only get investors when the government picks up part of the cost or mandates that they be used. That they would not be a good return on investment, ceteris paribus, is the market’s way of saying “don’t do this, do something else.”</p>
<p>It so happens right now that fossil fuels are the best product for energy. Later, that could change with improved technology or new discoveries. Government involvement would be unnecessary, as engineers and investors and other people trying to make a buck will be seeking out these new methods and discoveries in order to make some of the money that is currently being spent on fossil fuels.</p>
<p>As for school lunches, defining what’s “economical” or “efficient” depends entirely on what the goal is. With engine efficiency, we take it for granted to mean that the engine is able to use the maximum amount of energy to move the axles to propel the car forward. Engines also produce heat, noise, fumes, vibrations, etc. Only when you define what the goal is–mileage–can you say whether something is the most economical or efficient. Maximum output (miles) with minimum input (gas). With school lunches, if the goal is merely to get calories into kids, then junk food is probably not the most economical option–that would probably be protein shakes or some quasi-food syrup thing. Generally, people expect lunch to provide balanced nutrition as well as just energy, in which case people can debate about what’s the best lunch at the lowest price.</p>
<p>Mamooie, don’t assume that just because a majority of the people want a thing, the government will provide that thing. Most people hate to see rapists and child molestors and murderers released from prison, and yet it happens. Most people would prefer lower food prices, yet price supports for food products remain in place. The list goes on. Democracy is not so much “majority rule” as it is “well-funded, well-organized minority rule.”</p>