Nuclear engineering with aerospace background

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the potential career path of a physics engineering student interested in nuclear engineering, particularly in the context of lacking a dedicated nuclear physics concentration in their program. Participants explore the relevance of an aerospace engineering background and the future of nuclear engineering in light of public perception and recent events like Fukushima.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses concern about the lack of a nuclear physics concentration in their program and questions whether an aerospace engineering focus would be beneficial for a future in nuclear engineering.
  • Another participant suggests that knowledge of thermal reactors and thermal reactions from aerospace engineering could be useful for nuclear engineering.
  • Concerns are raised about the future of nuclear engineering in light of the Fukushima disaster, with one participant questioning if interest in nuclear power will rise again.
  • A different participant asserts that nuclear power is essential and will remain relevant, citing the lack of viable alternatives for energy production and the need for improved reactor designs, such as liquid fluoride thorium reactors.
  • One participant, who is a nuclear engineering student, emphasizes the importance of materials science in nuclear engineering, particularly regarding radiation effects and corrosion in advanced reactors.
  • Discussion includes the significance of materials aging and degradation in older reactors and the challenges associated with nuclear fuel storage and accident tolerance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of concerns and optimism regarding the future of nuclear engineering. While some believe that nuclear power will remain important, others question its viability post-Fukushima. There is no clear consensus on the impact of recent events on the field's future or the best educational path for the original poster.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various challenges in nuclear engineering related to materials science, including radiation effects, corrosion, and the aging of materials in reactors. There are also references to specific reactor designs and the implications of public perception on the industry.

bass_cannon
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I am a student in physics engineering and I would like to work as a nuclear engineering later on in my career but we don't have a proper atomic and nuclear physics concentration in my program. We have optics, aerospace engineering and materials science that come as close candidates as a replacement, so I was wondering if you guys think I'm making a good decision by going in aerospace engineering concentration. I was thinking that maybe the knowledge that I will get concerning thermal reactors and thermal reactions could prove useful for nuclear engineering.

Ideally I will go for a master's degree in nuclear engineering at a university that offers it. But for the moment I wonder if an employer in nuclear engineering would appreciate hiring an engineer with both aerospace/mechanical engineering and atomic and nuclear physics background.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I am also wondering if nuclear engineering will still be in vogue considering what has happened with Fukushima. Do you think the interest in nuclear power will rise again in a few years or should I really consider another career?
 
bass_cannon said:
I am also wondering if nuclear engineering will still be in vogue considering what has happened with Fukushima. Do you think the interest in nuclear power will rise again in a few years or should I really consider another career?

Nuclear power is here to stay. We don't even have a viable alternative to creating the energy we need. The problem is public perception and the fact that people fear what they don't really understand. I think we need to build better reactors, something a long the lines of the liquid fluoride thorium reactors. Look these up. Then we also have the ultimate power which is a type of nuclear reaction.Fusion. My point, you will find a job somewhere, whether that be a power plant, or government agency or whatever. I'm a nuclear engineering student
 
bass_cannon said:
Hello,

I am a student in physics engineering and I would like to work as a nuclear engineering later on in my career but we don't have a proper atomic and nuclear physics concentration in my program. We have optics, aerospace engineering and materials science that come as close candidates as a replacement, so I was wondering if you guys think I'm making a good decision by going in aerospace engineering concentration. I was thinking that maybe the knowledge that I will get concerning thermal reactors and thermal reactions could prove useful for nuclear engineering.

Ideally I will go for a master's degree in nuclear engineering at a university that offers it. But for the moment I wonder if an employer in nuclear engineering would appreciate hiring an engineer with both aerospace/mechanical engineering and atomic and nuclear physics background.

Thanks
In the absence of atomic and nuclear physics or undergraduate nuclear engineering, a background in aerospace engineering and materials science would be valuable.

While I majored in nuclear engineering (after having majored in nuclear/astrophysics), I took a number of courses in aerospace engineering, electrical engineering and materials science.

Some of the big challenges involve materials, particularly radiation effects and corrosion. Advanced reactors often involve higher temperatures which means a more aggressive environment for materials. For materials, a hot, relatively new area is 'phase field theory' and 'atomic/molecular dynamics'. For older reactors, Gen II and Gen III, materials aging and degradation is a key area of interest. For nuclear fuel, the effects of long term dry storage and eventual disposition are areas of interest, as is the matter of 'accident tolerant' nuclear fuel.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
18K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K