Preparing the Next Generation of Nuclear Engineers

In “Educating Engineers for a New Nuclear Age” (Issues, Summer 2024), Aditi Verma, Katie Snyder, and Shanna Daly’s vision closely aligns with recent sociotechnical advancements, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence-powered simulations. Recent research has demonstrated the potential of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and other immersive technologies to bridge the gap between technical knowledge and real-world application in engineering education. Studies indicate that VR and AR can significantly enhance spatial understanding and conceptual learning in complex engineering systems.

These technologies allow students to interact with virtual models of nuclear facilities, providing a safe and cost-effective way to gain hands-on experience. The simulations can adapt in real-time to student interactions, offering a more realistic and nuanced understanding of how technical decisions impact social and environmental factors. This fits perfectly with the authors’ goal of preparing engineers to collaborate effectively with communities and consider broader societal implications.

My recent work on modernizing education for the nuclear power industry underscores several key points that complement the authors’ vision. First is the need for rapid technological advancements in training methodologies to keep pace with industry evolution. The nuclear industry is facing a critical juncture where modernizing education and training is essential. The need for cost-effective approaches in training is paramount, especially with a projected increase in the number of nuclear plants and employees. This expansion necessitates scalable and efficient training methods that can accommodate a growing workforce while maintaining high standards of safety and competence.

Second is the importance of addressing emerging demographic shifts and knowledge transfer challenges, and the critical role of fostering a continuous improvement culture within engineering education. As experienced professionals retire, there is an urgent need to transfer knowledge to the next generation of nuclear engineers and technicians. Interactive e-learning environments and mobile accessibility can facilitate this knowledge transfer, making it more engaging and accessible to younger professionals and directly supporting the goal of creating more empathetic and ethically engaged engineers.

Third is the critical need to foster a continuous improvement culture within engineering education. The changing work environment demands adaptable training solutions. The integration of VR and AR technologies in training programs can provide immersive, hands-on experiences even in remote learning settings. This approach enhances the learning experience and improves safety by allowing trainees to practice in risk-free virtual environments.

Even as cutting-edge technologies are reshaping training methodologies, offering a versatile tool kit to optimize effectiveness and stay at the forefront of industry standards, work remains. Key areas to explore include interactive learning approaches and e-learning environments, VR and AR simulations for immersive experiences, AI-powered simulations for realism and adaptability, precision learning technologies for enhanced effectiveness, personalized skill development paths and adaptive learning, gamification for engagement, dynamic learning analytics and predictive analytics for proactive enhancement, and natural language processing to enhance instant support.

By applying the lessons we’ve already learned and the knowledge future studies will certainly bring, and combining these advancements with the authors’ community-centered, ethically driven approach, we can truly prepare the next generation of nuclear engineers. This holistic approach to education and training will enhance the industry’s safety and efficiency and contribute to its long-term sustainability and public acceptance.

Olivia M. Blackmon

Nuclear energy has been a “successful failure,” in the words of Vaclav Smil, a distinguished scholar at the University of Manitoba. Even though huge amounts of money and human resources have been invested in nuclear technology, its contribution to global power generation has been very modest and betrayed expectations. Global warming and energy security awareness after the Russian invasion of Ukraine give positive reinforcement to using nuclear power in some countries, and the International Energy Agency’s ambitious Net Zero Emission by 2050 scenario projects nuclear power generation to be double by 2050: to 67 exajoules (EJ) from the current 29 EJ. But renewable energy is growing much faster and is expected to play a much larger role for decarbonization, growing over that period to 306 EJ from 41 EJ—a seven-and-half-times increase.

It appears, then, that nuclear power may not be a mainstream of future energy. Why is this the case? Aditi Verma, Katie Snyder, and Shanna Daly give us an answer.

Current nuclear power is based on large light water reactors. It aims to achieve economy of scale by the size of reactor operating as base load. Nuclear power plants usually locate in remote areas to supply electricity to distant urban users through high-voltage power grid lines. This represents a large, centralized paradigm of energy supply. NIMBY—not in my backyard—often happens in local communities where residents feel forced to take more risks than benefits. Disastrous accidents such as occurred at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima strengthen the arguments against nuclear power. Delays of construction have increased costs by double or triple, and the major commercial reactor builders Westinghouse, Toshiba, and Areva have essentially collapsed. Another issue is radioactive waste. Without concrete plans for adequate waste disposal sites, it is irresponsible to do nuclear power. Combined, this means the current light water reactor paradigm is not sociopolitically sustainable.

Locals have “rights” to be heard, Verma, Snyder, and Daly argue. They maintain that a hoped-for rise of small modular reactors that are better suited to local needs may provide a chance. Microsoft is considering using SMRs to power its data centers. Dow Chemical is considering a type of SMR for some of its production plants. Canada is considering SMRs for heat for remote mining. In Japan, melted-down radioactive debris left from the Fukushima accident can’t be transported away for treatment, and an innovative type of SMR developed at the Idaho National Laboratory appears capable of handling the material onsite. As with all types of reactors, however, the authors stress that local people and communities must be fully engaged, from design through implementation.

Fusion energy has long been a dream technology. It is expected to produce much less waste, with passive safety and no risk of weaponization. A new sustainable paradigm may come true by fusion. There are many small-scale commercial fusion reactors under development. The authors’ group of young engineers is working to produce innovative designs with local communities. I sincerely hope they recover “trust, respect, and justice” among locals, and bring a new future to nuclear power.

Nobuo Tanaka

Aditi Verma, Katie Snyder, and Shanna Daly discuss their efforts to modernize the approach to teaching nuclear engineering, specifically moving beyond a singular focus on technical excellence to include engaging communities in participatory design and becoming fluent in ethical, equity-centered communication. Their work is timely as the international interest in deploying a new generation of commercial nuclear products has increased in response to both climate change and energy reliability concerns. Currently, many new commercial ventures look to deploy new nuclear systems in a much broader range of deployment scenarios beyond traditional gigawatt-scale electricity production.

The first commercial deployment of nuclear energy plateaued at supplying 20% of the US electricity demand. That plateau was associated with cost increases and also public pushback on further expanding the use of the technology. To successfully deploy additional nuclear energy in both traditional and new deployment scenarios (e.g., smaller plants closer to population centers, industrial heat uses, or direct off grid supply to data centers) will require better engagement and input from the communities that will ultimately decide on hosting nuclear technology. Placing that emphasis as part of the basic functions of engineering, as Verma, Snyder, and Daly propose, is a critical step.

Their work is historically significant for the University of Michigan. In 1948, U-M initiated the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Project, a campus-wide initiative that paid tribute to the 579 students and faculty who lost their lives in World War II. The project aimed at understanding the peaceful civilian uses of atomic energy. As former U-M president and dean emeritus of engineering James Duderstadt described: “It is important to recognize just how bold this effort was. At the time, the program’s goals sounded highly idealistic. Atomic energy was under government monopoly, and appeared to be an extremely dangerous force with which to work on a college campus. This was the first university attempt in the world to explore the peaceful uses of atomic energy, at a time when much of the technology was still highly classified.”

Given U-M’s leadership in understanding the first generation of the civilian uses for nuclear technology, it is heartening to see a new generation of young scholars leading national discussions about future uses of the technology and how engineers should approach their field.

Todd Allen