Atomic Show #159 – Interview With Representatives of the Nuclear Engineering Student Delegation
The Washington Nuclear Engineering Student Delegation makes an annual trip to Washington DC. The trip provides students in nuclear engineering programs around the country the opportunity to talk with leaders in DC based organizations important to nuclear technology like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Energy Institute.
The trip also provides the students a chance to meet with congressmen, senators and their staff members that work on energy issues so that they can share thoughts and learn a bit more about how the political processes work. Here is the group’s mission statement:
The Delegation, as a representative cross-section, seeks to express the views and policy of the nuclear science and engineering student population. As students, we find ourselves discovering a field that holds promise for a bright future. There is an interest and enthusiasm for the nuclear sciences in American’s youth, and we look for the continued support of programs that will benefit both students and society.
This year, the NESD visit to Washington took place during the week of July 24-July 29. On August 1, 2010, I spoke with three of the 12 students who participated for Atomic Show #159. The guests included Rachel Slaybaugh from the University of Wisconsin – Madison (one of the co-chairmen of the group), Will Sames from Texas A&M University, and Kevin Robb from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. The students shared their thoughts about the policy statement that they created on the first day of their trip, issues that concern nuclear engineering programs, federal support for research reactors, importance of faculty development programs and the importance of efforts to ensure that nuclear energy is defined as clean energy for the purposes of counting as an effort to reduce CO2.
If you are a nuclear engineering student or a student from a diverse assortment of disciplines including, but not limited to, non-proliferation, national security, health physics, and environmental science & policy and you are interested in participating in next year’s trip to DC, please visit the Washington Nuclear Engineering Student Delegation page sometime before early spring next year.
I also want to take this opportunity to remind you that there are a couple of high school students who are undertaking a video project in which they will visit with four nuclear energy pioneers who helped them prepare for a series of competitive debates. The Team Policy combo of Price Baker and Mary Claire Birdsong debated the resolution: “Resolved: that the United State Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy.” Baker/Birdsong advocated the use of Nuclear Power as the most effective way to reform environmental policy. You can find out more about the project at Opportunity to Support an Exciting Nuclear Technology Video Project.
If you are interested in participating by providing a donation, please send me an email.
Why aren’t engineers looking at where the energy is? My background is Physics, Applied Math Computer Science and enough engineering to be a Nuclear Engineer. From that viewpoint I feel that solar and wind even Gas is NOT the answer everyone hypes it up to be. Why did the early steam engines convert from coal to oil? Energy Density!
DO THE MATH.
Look at it like this. Over the last ten years we have made the home gas fired furnace or hot water heater about as efficient as we possibly can. The heat coming out of the vent is almost cold. It is vented with a plastic pipe! We are achieving close to the same end with CCGT electrical generation. I feel it will not be long till we do the same with coal.
Take the maximum theoretical energy in Wind available in a given area that can be intercepted by a device (any form of wind generator of any type.) There is not much “energy” left to gather regardless of how efficient we want to make it. And, we have been studying/using wind “energy” for thousands of years.
Assume that ALL of the energy in Gas, Coal, and Nuclear Fission of U235 (or whatever) is converted to electricity. Dig out your thermodynamics equation and figure out how much energy there is in each. Look at the energy density of each. Again we are approaching the theoretical maximum for coal and gas. Yet, we are presently using less than 0.000,000,000,000,001% of the energy released in nuclear fission! On top of that we are only using 5% of the fissile fuel and then throwing the other 95% away! Still, we get as much energy from 2 grams of U235 as we would from over 5 tons of coal!
There must be a way to take advantage of the fission process and create Hydrogen, directly, for use as a portable, mobile, energy source. We should be able to collect the electrons given off and convert them directly to some form of usable electricity (like in some of the space craft) Even if it was only 0.000,000,000,001% efficient, think of how much H2 you could make or electricity you could generate.
We should also look at how these “renewable” methods are used. As they say “Quit trying to shove a square peg into a round hole!” The integration of intermittent, unreliable, power sources is not worth the expense. However I can readily think of several very acceptable uses – Wind/solar power should be used for pumping water, running water filtration systems, desalination systems, even operating ice storage systems – OFF GRID. You can’t charge electric vehicles with the extra solar power if the vehicle is driving around or parked at work, and there is no extra solar power at night when it is at home in its garage. Most companies don’t even offer parking any more, how many are going to offer solar charging stations for all employees? And wind has these same problems. And speaking of wind, farmers in Oklahoma, Nebraska and the Dakotas are tearing down the high maintenance wind mills and using solar powered water pumps. What does that tell you?