Skip to main content

Back to school

There are various places where people from the nuclear industry can serve the public, some of which are less confrontational than, say, the meeting on climate change in Virginia.

On May 16, 2005, I addressed both sections of the AP Government class at Heritage High School, in Lynchburg, VA. My subject was “Radioactive Waste and Politics”. The AP Government class is designed to prepare seniors for the College Board’s advanced placement test. The class members are among the strongest students in the senior class.

The invitation to speak resulted from a comment by the teacher of the class in the fall of 2004. The high school regularly hosts a “back to school night” for parents of students, and the teacher noted that she would welcome speakers whose work was related to a political or social problem. I sent her an e-mail that described my experience in radioactive waste management, notably eight years on the Yucca Mountain Project. She was happy to have a volunteer. The culmination of the class is the advanced placement test, which is normally administered in early May. My speech was scheduled after the test as a supplementary or “enrichment” topic.

I collected a few teaching aids. These included a fuel rod mockup and a handful of pictures, which I put into a PowerPoint file. There were pictures of fuel assemblies, plots of radioactive inventory as a function of time, pictures and a schematic of the Yucca Mountain site, and a photograph of a corrosion sample of waste package material. (After 50 years of atmospheric corrosion in a marine environment, the sample retains a mirror finish.) I brought the pictures on a memory stick and projected them with a computer projector. What I presented was basically a lecture with occasional supporting visuals rather than a structured presentation.

The topic of radioactive waste management is vast and quite unfamiliar to most people. Subtopics include the various types of waste, the physics of radioactive decay, health physics, radionuclide transport, regulation, the history of site selection, the layout of the Yucca Mountain site, waste package design, etc. There was obviously too much material to cover in a fifty-minute class. My strategy was to try to cover the technical background necessary to understand why radioactive waste management is needed, the politics involved in site selection and program funding, defense in depth as it applies at Yucca Mountain, and the possibilities for personal involvement. I generally followed the strategy, though I occasionally caught myself discussing some subjects in unnecessary detail.

The teacher had told me that the two classes had very different characters, and she was right. The class that met before lunch was very lively and involved, with lots of questions, and the class that met after lunch was much more passive. (I think it is lunch that does it. I briefed Yucca Mountain tour groups numerous times and saw the same pattern.)

My intention for the presentation had never been to push a message that nuclear is good or that licensing of the Yucca Mountain repository is essential. I simply tried to explain the situation and the efforts underway. At the same time, my interest in the subject and beliefs about its importance were probably evident.

It is often difficult to gauge how one’s presentation is received. Since I was only able to cover the most important points, I felt as if I were giving a tour of a cave with only a single flashlight. I was able to guide the group into a few rooms, shine the light on a few interesting formations, and take the group out again. It seemed hopeless to provide an overall view.

Fortunately, the teacher arranged for a group thank-you note from her classes, so I received feedback from the students. The response was overwhelmingly positive. Here are a few of my favorite comments:

“I feel I now know much more about nuclear waste and it doesn’t scare me so badly.”

“Thanks for coming, nuclear waste is awesome!”

“Cheers for sharing what you know. You are really passionate about what you do, and I admire that!”

“Thank you for contributing to my knowledge and correcting my previously negative opinion toward the Yucca Mountain Project.”

“I learned a great deal about nuclear waste and might even consider [it as] a field of study.”

One of interesting things about preparing for the talk was to realize that I knew so much about the subject. The purpose, however, was not to make a show of my knowledge or even primarily to transmit information, but to show that the problem is being handled and that members of the public can be involved in the solution if they like. It was a way of putting a human face on radioactive waste management, on nuclear, and on engineering in general. In summary, I found the effort to be well worthwhile and would recommend that other engineers consider presenting their work to school groups. I plan to be back in AP Government class again next year. And then there is the physics class …

Comments

Kelly L Taylor said…
Thank you for the insights, Kevin. It can be difficult to face a classroom full of students and wonder what they're getting from your investment of time and information. While not all teachers may take the time to ensure feedback gets to the speaker as this one did, the lesson is that doing the right thing produces results, even if you never know about it! Not only did you encourage those students, but you've encouraged us to step out and share our experience, as well!

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...