NE 231

Coming into this class with no prior knowledge on nuclear engineering, I learned a lot about both how reactors work to create and distribute energy, and how the nuclear industry functions. From an industrial engineering standpoint, I found learning about the US energy market and the difference between regulated and deregulated markets interesting.

My understanding of the nuclear field changed as I became aware of more types of careers for nuclear engineers. My only previous knowledge were of reactor operators and general nuclear energy research. The senior design team I worked with are going into careers including risk assessment, reactor fuel modeling, and neutronics analytics.

My understanding of engineering ethics did not necessarily change, however, I did begin to more quickly and naturally see ethical issues or the possibility of ethical issues arising, especially in the case of nuclear engineering. The nuclear in the news assignments were especially valuable in learning to identify any possible ethical issues.

My goals in terms of education are to graduate with my IE degree along with a technical communications certificate and six sigma green belt certification. After a few years of work I am going to decide if I want to go back to school to either get a masters in IE or a MBA.

Interview:

I chose to interview the senior design team that I helped throughout the semester on their project, group  3, who were focused on designing a project timeline for decommissioning the MSRE nuclear test sight at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The inspiration for this project was due to the recent increase in interest in molten salt reactors and and the group thought it could be of great benefit to already have a plan in place to decommission the specific type of reactor. Ethically, group 3 believes that making a plan early can ultimately lead to workers and the surrounding public to have the least amount of exposure possible during the decommissioning process. The biggest steps in this project all involved looking at past decommissioning projects and trying to integrate them specifically to the molten salt reactor design. During the course of integrating these designs, the seniors found waste handling to be the biggest nuclear specific challenge. The fact that much of the waste was active within the salt proved to be a difficult problem to navigate.

In terms of using their undergrad education during this project, the seniors felt that knowing MCNP was the most applicable skill. Along with MCNP, general calculation skills and research skills learned during their undergrad was also helpful. The fields that this group are looking to go into are risk assessment, reactor fuel modeling, and neutronics analytics. To prepare for these careers a broad range of skills are required; most important are statistical analysis, knowledge of reactor physics, and MCNP. Less technical skills involve working as part of a team, and strong time management. I asked the seniors why they chose nuclear engineering and they all agreed that it had the most interesting physics and that it was a promising field in terms of alternative energy.

As an IE major, there are two risk assessment classes involved with nuclear power plants that would help an industrial engineer prepare for a career in the nuclear energy industry. Other than that, the make space offers courses to learn computer programs that may be used in the nuclear field and the career fair has limited opportunity for nuclear.

Reflection:

Throughout my undergrad at UW Madison, the main skills I would like to develop are project management and communication skills. To learn about and grow these skills I am taking a couple project management classes that the IE major offers along with program evaluation and six sigma courses. Along with my IE major I am getting a technical communications certificate to build my technical presentation skills to prepare for a job in which I will be keeping a boss up to date on projects I am involved with. In terms of opportunities, I am looking into leadership rotational programs with companies. These programs look for recent engineering and business graduates to work in many parts of a company in different locations so that they can broaden their knowledge of the company to eventually work in upper management. I am hoping the career fair and possibly my counselors can help me interview for these programs.

This week in lecture we discussed how nuclear fission can produce medical isotopes used in diagnostic medical imaging. I would like to learn more about the development of this technology. Specifically, how were the isotopes decided as safe to put in human bodies as a radioactive substance. Also, with the process of creating the isotopes leaving behind HEU, what opposition did the process have within the US government?

This week in lecture we had a discussion about the renewability and sustainability of nuclear energy and also compared it to the renewable resources such as solar and wind power. After the discussion I believe that based on our current technology, nuclear wouldn’t be defined as renewable but definitely falls under the category of sustainable. I also believe that it is very difficult to measure and compare the “cleanness” of energy sources as there are many factors to be considered. In general, amount byproducts and waste are the quantifiers of a clean energy source, however, other inputs such as land usage, and ecosystem disruption should also be considered. Overall the technologies of all sustainable, clean resources are always improving and I believe that continuing to support all forms of clean energy including nuclear is important.

This week in lecture we learned about international nuclear safeguards; mostly we discussed the IAEA inspections and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I would like to learn more about how Israel has managed to keep its nuclear stockpile mostly secret and its motivation for doing so. Ethically, in terms of the NPT working towards disarmament, is complete disarmament a good goal? With the technology for nuclear warheads still in existence any country could become extremely powerful by creating the only nuclear weapon.

https://www.thelocal.at/20180224/austria-sues-over-eu-approval-of-hungary-nuclear-plant

 

This article relates to ethical considerations when dealing with opposition to the nuclear industry and direct opposition to planned projects. Austria is planning to sue the EU over their decision to allow the expansion of nuclear power production in Hungary, a neighbor of Austria, by about double the amount. Based on the article, Austria believes nuclear energy to be high risk, unstable, and harmful to the environment and has taken the stance of wanting no nuclear energy presence in Europe.

This ethical issue can come at any level, from local to national, and as shown in this article, both in industry and in government. When dealing with opposition to a proposed nuclear plant, I believe it is essential to have an open dialogue. In the case of this article,  the Austrian and Hungarian governments along with Rosatom, the Russian nuclear agency funding a large portion of the project, should discuss where Austria’s objections come from. I do not think it is necessary to stop any building during these discussions as Hungary has permission from the EU, the governing body over the matter. Even though the fact that Austria has taken action against other countries and their nuclear plans seems to point more towards a position of Austria taking any action possible to oppose all nuclear in Europe, more care and consideration should be taken towards this complaint due to the shared border. The problem is that Austria’s stance seems highly unlikely to change so overall, Hungary should move forward with their plan as the EU has given permission for the project.

Questions:

1. Does a shared border merit any say in Hungary’s expansion plan when the plant is fully contained within Hungary?
2. Austria is also planning to take action in the future over proposed nuclear power expansion in the Czech Republic. Does there come a point where the EU can step in to preemptively block any attempts to stall or stop nuclear in Europe?
3. More generally, should an opposing entity to nuclear have power to stall a building process when strict guidelines are already being followed?

Post-discussion:

After the discussion, my idea of the ethical issue involved with this article did not change. As I expected, the views that were brought up to deal with opposition were mainly to ignore the opposition, treat each challenge on a case by case basis, and to educate the opposition on nuclear to try and persuade them. The suggestion that resonated with me most was from professor Scarlat that involved building offices for a nuclear power company in Austria and hiring the locals. Not having an actual plant in the country would less intrusively introduce nuclear energy to their culture maybe to a point of reliance on the industry. Overall, this could sway the public’s view of nuclear and maybe in turn that of the government.

Overall, I recommend that the senior design teams keep in mind that even if opposition seems to be based on misinformation or just a history of anti-nuclear, it cannot simply be brushed aside, especially if the opposition has a public platform or large influence. Ignoring protests without any aknowledgement could easily lead to an anti-nuclear argument based mostly on the industry not listening to consumers, a viewpoint which I believe would sway many people against nuclear.

https://thebulletin.org/facing-reality-us-saudi-nuclear-agreement-south-korea11683

 

The general ethical issue in this article I would like to point to is loosening stance in politics to provide opportunity for industry.

In term of this article, the Trump administration is working on a nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia allowing for flexibility in the the centrifuge technology limit, possibly allowing for uranium to be enriched more than necessary. The reason for this flexibility is to give Westinghouse, a US company, a better chance of securing the bid for Saudi Arabia’s next nuclear reactor project. Politically, the administration argues that the reason for the flexibility in centrifuge limit is to beat either China or Russia to a nuclear foothold in Saudi Arabia. However, the author lists many reasons as to why South Korea, an ally of the US,  would certainly be the power overseeing the project over the US instead of China or Russia.

I believe there is no room for this leniency with Saudi Arabia, especially when the US was much more strict with Iran’s nuclear deal. Even though the US is much more friendly with Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince stated that if Iran got a bomb that they would too; this deal would make that statement much more plausible.

Questions:

1. Would the US allowing for the centrifuges put any fault on the US if eventually, the Non-Proliferation treaty were to be broken?
2. Does pushing for a US company in bankruptcy due to failed nuclear projects make sense when South Korea has just finished a project in UAE?

Post Discussion:

My definition on the ethical issue did not change, however, some classmates believed that when negotiating, there needs to be a certain level of leniency to get a deal through. I agree with this view point just not in the specific terms of this article and the leniency on number of centrifuges allowed. Overall, my perspective on the issue did not change in terms of this article.

My main recommendation for the seniors after this discussion, specifically when working in a startup company, would be to clearly define the company’s stance on a range of complicated, nuclear issues early on in the process of building the company. This way, if faced with a situation incorporating these issues there will already be a firm line in place that everyone in the company will know to abide by.

This week in lecture we watched a video detailing the function of the molten salt reactor experiment and the reasons for building it. It was a very helpful video as it is the same reactor that the senior design team I am working with is decommissioning for their project. With all of the NRCs regulations and safeguards, even though the design had been shown to be a stable thermal breeder since the mid 1960s, there a no commercial molten salt reactors in use today. Ethically, the regulations are important but do not promote large innovation in the field of nuclear power due to the high risk investment involved. A balance needs to be found that still promotes safety above all without restricting the industry from evolving.

This week we toured the UW Madison housed in the Mechanical Engineering Building on campus. It was very helpful for me to see an actual reactor and control room to put a more functional picture in my head to go along with the concepts we have touched on about nuclear reactors. This tour was different from the steam plant as the main focus was the reactor and its control room instead of systems and power produced from the reactor. Both were very insightful to create a broader overview of how nuclear reactors play a role in creating power. Another difference I noticed was emergency systems were more of a focus in the UW test reactor tour. Overall, I enjoyed both tours.

Last week we visited the building that provides steam and cool water for the UW campus. We toured the building and learned about the boiling process and saw the piping infrastructure that delivered the steam. I would like to learn more about how the flame in the boiler is created.