/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12590656]

Is nuclear engineering a meme degree?

[Anonymous No.12590676]

>>12590656
All forms of engineering are meme degrees, except for railway engineering

[Anonymous No.12590792]

>>12590656
IF YOU ARE SERIOUSLY ASKING THIS QUESTION, YOU BELONG AT MCDONALDS, AS A RESTROOM SANITATION ENGINNEER

[Anonymous No.12590837]

>>12590656
dont know a whole lot about nuc eng but from wikipedia: "The United States currently generates about 20% of its electricity from nuclear power plants"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_engineering]. Thats quite a bit and someone had to design and maintain these facilities.

[Anonymous No.12590855]

>>12590676
>/n/
you have to go back

[Anonymous No.12590865]

>>12590656
It was one of my majors , I found it very fruitful in my personal career. Let alone I love the field. Especially when it comes to reactor operations.

Dude , are you really going to post a damn picture of Chernobly and call nuc eng a meme degree ? In which nuc engineering has effectively reduced the possibility of reactor accidents to nearly zero.

[Anonymous No.12591206]

15 more reactors coming online this year. Not a meme degree

[Anonymous No.12591874]

>atom go splitty
>watter get hotty
>turbine go spinny
Wow, I'm so impressed

[Anonymous No.12591882]

>>12591874
>atom go splitty
>city go wee wee
Yes, it is impressive

[Anonymous No.12591898]

>>12590865
do you guys work on fusion?

[Anonymous No.12591901]

>>12590656
retiring all these outdated plants takes decades so this is actually a safe job

[Anonymous No.12591961]

nuclear engineering = advanced chemical engineering

if you know how to manipulate protons you can do all sorts of fun stuff like building small nuclear reactors (read: something the military wants) small uranium batteries (aka pacemakers), chemotherapy and sometimes radiology too. If none of this interests you then yes it is a meme degree.

>>12590676

RR engineering is just civil construction but with bigger bolts.

[Anonymous No.12591964]

>>12591874
It's kind of inefficient, isn't it? They just place the core inside big pressure cooker and spin glorified pinwheel with the generated superheated steam.
I understand that turbines and reactors are very well designed and are not at all simple, but those fundamental concepts which they use are just too inefficient. I think it would be much better to try to extract the energy at atomic scale, instead of just dumping the fuel into water.
I guess the ecofags just create too much noise, so governments don't like to invest into new ideas in nuclear engineering.

[Anonymous No.12592025]

>>12590656
Reminder that nuclear fission isn't a thing because of MUH ENVIRONMENTALISTS but because its expensive as fuck compared to literally any other form of generating electricity

[Anonymous No.12592066]

>>12592025
It's expensive as fuck because of environmentalists, the hysteria surrounding nuclear energy has led to retarded amounts of red tape and standards far exceeding those of other power plants.

[Anonymous No.12592178]

>>12591964
anon pretty much every system we use to generate electricity or mechanical energy is a heat engine. You're touching on a fundamental engineering problem, not just the gubment and corporations being unwilling to innovate

[Anonymous No.12592924]

>>12591964
In principle, it looks "the same"
But thing is, nuclear reactors are the most efficient energy source next to hydro. It's sitting at 90% whereas coal is 45%

Mainly because there's no need for oxygen and ventilation to ignite the fuel at the cost of allowing the heat to escape

[Anonymous No.12592932]

>>12590656
It's like becoming a gunsmith, your career is controlled by politics as much as your own ability.

[Anonymous No.12595218]

>>12592178
well at least pv's, wind, and hydroelectric doesn't use a heat engine.

[Anonymous No.12596542]

Fun fact:

America's worst fallout disaster wasn't from a reactor meltdown, it was from a botched nuclear weapon test in 1954.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo

[Anonymous No.12596621]

>>12591964
There are currently 2 known ways to induce current: using a semiconductor, or using a magnet and coil. Currently, semiconductors aren't nearly advanced enough to absorb a worthwhile amount of energy. That's why solar cells are capped at around 40%(?). Using a thermal engine utilizes almost all the energy, which is why even after thousands of years, we're using water to spin wheels to make energy.

[Anonymous No.12596641]

>>12590656
yeah if underlining assumptions of nuclear reactions are just close approximations instead of explanations of actual physical phenomenon.
C^2=E/M

[Anonymous No.12596651]

>>12591874
lole ids tru

[Anonymous No.12596805]

>>12595218
>Wind, and hydroelectric
>Not a heat engine
The atmosphere, and the water cycle, which makes rivers work are a heat engine
Wind is also a heat engine, caused by temperature gradients between the oceans, land, polar caps, and mountains lmao, due to the sun heating areas differently
PVs and batteries are the only systems that generate power differently, but the energy stored in batteries is manufactured at a loss by humans, who are a part of the water cycle, and solar heat engine lmao

[Anonymous No.12597264]

>>12596641
Wait
If c = j and m = L and E = 1/C, isn't that just an LC tank?
[math]mc = \frac{1}{c} E[/math]
iow
[math]jL = \frac{1}{jC}[/math]
Is the universe just a resonant tank with an angular frequency of 1?

[Anonymous No.12597285]

>>12590656
depends if fission is still legal in your country
>>12590676
based and 19th century pilled?

[Anonymous No.12597864]

>>12590676
holy based

[Anonymous No.12597989]

>>12591961
>Advanced Chemical Engineering?

What. Nuclear reactors are just steam boilers. Their only complexity is in the heat medium, and even that is just a matter of controlling the heat removal. Everything else in regards to the nuclear plant is just safety, reliability, and regulatory. Also a bit of water chemistry but you get that with any steam boiler. It may seem complicated because the risk tolerance for these plants are like 99.9999999999999% reliable.

No, there are far more convoluted things in the world of chemical engineering then a nuke plant.
source:
>am chemical engineer.
>Have minor in nuclear power systems.
>Have designed actual chemical plants.

[Anonymous No.12598708]

>>12590656
Nuclear engineers in Ontario get paid really well, not much geographic mobility though

[Anonymous No.12598720]

>>12597989
Most nuclear engineers are just over specialized mechanical engineers, there's an almost 0% chance that they end up doing any work actually related to fission

[Anonymous No.12599794]

>>12596542
The Sedan test probably had a bigger impact at home though. At least when it comes to long-term effects. This is not to mention the combined effect of the dozens of above-ground tests conducted in desert southwest. Imagine the public uproar if such a thing were even considered today.