Work in Fossil Plant or Nuclear Plant

[knight185]

I have been working in fossil power plants since I graduated from college in 2006 (mechanical engineering). Most of my work has involved troubleshooting rotating equipment and managing steam turbine overhaul projects. In the future I may have the opportunity to work in some nuclear plants and I wanted to find out some pros and cons. In my company most of the people strongly prefer fossil or nuclear. I am attracted to nuclear because those plants are very detailed about records, procedures, outage scheduling, etc. The fossil plants can be somewhat lazy in these areas and as a project manager/engineer, it can be frustrating because the culture has been around so long.

I know some of the nuke engineers who loved the work and others were nervous most of the time because of the high standards and "nuclear" atmosphere.

As a young engineer who intends to stay in the power industry, should I pursue nuclear experience or stick with fossil?

 

[ctopher]

IMO, I think nuclear has more of a future than fossil. I would go with nuclear.
I have worked with fossil indirectly...designing valves and pipelines; did not like it much. I wish for fossil fuel to fade away.
My 2 cents.

Chris
SolidWorks 09, CATIA V5
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[GregLocock]

If you like paperwork and procedures then I would have thought nukes were a no-brainer. The alarmism over CO2 emissions will probably carry on for the next 20 years, and then there is always decommissioning them which is a job for life.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[zdas04]

When I got out of the Nuclear Industry in 1977 I was pretty sure that I would live to see the last nuc plant and nuclear powered ship decommissioned. I'm beginning to think that I might have been wrong. The rhetoric is swinging back towards nuclear plants maybe being the lesser of available evils. Today I would say that the Nuclear Industry would be a pretty good place for a young Engineer to be starting out.

The procedures, documentation, and re-training requirements are certainly not for everyone, but if you can tolerate them it is not a bad choice.

David

 

[Mr168]

Nuclear is more detailed, and to an extent, less frustrating to deal with because it lacks the "slap it together" mindset o the fossil work. The pace of construction however can be considerably slower as a result.

 

[KirbyWan]

When I started college I was in the department of Nuclear Engineering. I dropped out and worked full time at Kansas State for 8 years before going back and when I did the Nuclear department was absorbed into the Mechanical Engineering department. My interests had changed in that time and I got my degree in Mechanical Engineering without the nuclear option.

While a nuclear power plant has not been ordered since the accident at 3 mile island, the public perspective on nuclear power has shifted slightly. Many (not all) environmental groups that would have protested nuclear power plants 30 years ago are now supporters of nuclear power because of the lack of CO2 emissions. There is still the problem of what to do with spent fuel rods, and while many people might support nuclear power there is still a serious NIMBY (not in my back yard) problem.

I think the research on safer nuclear power plants is interesting and new plant orders may start soon. (I don't follow the industry very closely and new plants may already have been ordered.) I am a supporter of nuclear power and hope they do start building new nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is our best option to reduce carbon emissions on a large scale. The key to success is to have a single plant design and have the same design built over and over so people can be trained and be able to carry that training to any of the plants.

All this is to say I think nuclear power is a growth industry and I think it's a very good place to be. Besides once you have the hot steam the power conversion is the same, so anything you have learned about turbines and condensers and generators is going to be transferable between nuclear and traditional power stations.

-Kirby

Kirby Wilkerson

Remember, first define the problem, then solve it.

 

[stanweld]

The existing nuclear fleet is in need of younger Engineers as many of the present Engineers will be soon retiring. Construction of the first new plants appears likely. The NRC and AIA's are currently staffing up for them. If given the opportunity to join the nuclear industry and you think that you will like it, go for it!

 

[MiketheEngineer]

Just you and Homer Simpson.....

I think nuclear will make a strong come back in the next few decades....just no other way to make good cheap power.

 

[BJC]

Working on the construction/startup phase of a Nuke is reasonably fun. Working on an operating nuclear plant for a utility is where you'll go when your dead if you have led a bad life.

 

[Maui]

I worked in nukes when I started out. I will not work in them again. The standards mandated by the feds require that documentation procedures, drawings standards, etc. be followed to the letter. And the management is those plants tend to be very good about following those standards. But when it comes to safety, it is a completely different story. Indian Point is one of the nuke plants that we did work for, and it was one of the most crapped up plants in the country. It only takes one idiot inside one of those plants to have a minor a lapse in judgement on any given day, and it can change your life permanently. I worked with several people who had undergone inadvertent radioactive contamination. One fellow was apparently exposed to cesium-137 since it was detected inside his body during a full body count. And he carries it in him to this day. He has no idea how it got there or how that exposure will shorten his life span. Idiots work in nukes like everywhere else, but their actions can have rather sobering effects on everyone around them. If you go into nukes, keep a close eye on your co-workers and be especially careful about your own safety.

Maui

 

[oldfieldguy]

I tend to think fossil is going to be around for a longer time.

Fuel selection may move away from coal. Natural gas reserves seem to be turning up quite a bit. Here's an article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...s-postponed-as-new-gas-rescues-the-world.html

My own sources in the industry here in the USA corroborate the article and seem to add more to the US reserves. I've heard numbers like "250 years" tossed about.

Nukes might be lining up for a move too. A large facility for the fabrication of components for nuclear plants is being built here in my local area. Somebody apparently knows something solid enough to sink a lot of money into the facility.

old field guy

 

[macmet]

I agree with Old Field Guy. I think nuclear seems to have some momentum now, but with some advances I see fossil fuels getting back on top.

I happen to work in the alternative energy industry so I may be biased. But, we often bid on jobs where the customer is trying to decide between fossil fuels and alternative energy, and we rarely win. That is partially b/c of a poor sales team, but I think it's largely because when it comes down to people spending their own money the value people place in "helping" the environment drops.

I don't imagine there will be an end to nuke power anytime soon, but I see fossil fuels picking up again.

 

[knight185]

I would be working in the plants as a mechanical engineer, not on the construction of new plants. Although the nuclear plants are more detailed about planning and documenting the work, I am wondering if my personal satisfaction with the a nuke job would be less simply because of the extra red tape involved in getting work done. Also, in my current area I think I have a good chance of getting into the management ranks. I have heard that in the nukes most of the management is made up of a tight group of ex-Navy guys. Does this have any truth to it?

The one management job I am interested in is outage supervisor. I love working on scheduled outages when we can do major overhauls of the equipment. More enjoyable than the daily fire fighting. I have noticed, at least in my experience, that outage supervisors don't stay in the job for too long. Several of the ones that I know have been promoted to managers and directors. I guess if you do the job well you get promotion opportunities. My current outage supervisor had a few counterparts at some nuclear plants who ended up quitting because the projects were set up to fail.

 

[metengr]

From the perspective of an actual power plant engineer; I have worked in the Power Generation business for my entire career and I would remain with fossil generation over nuclear anytime. I have worked in both types of facilities, and I decided to remain in the fossil industry because of the day to day challenges with maintaining aged equipment and not being second guessed as in the nuclear industry. Also, the nuclear industry seems to have a higher burn-out (lots of overtime to work during outages with no family life) rate of engineers wanting to leave versus fossil.

I see a clean coal technology as a fascinating business to get into with excellent prospects.

 

[knight185]

I think it will be interesting to see what the future holds for fossil generation. Environmental regulations will drive the cost of producing power through the roof and I know the various utility commissions will not want those costs passed onto the consumers. I also don't understand how the govt is requiring utilities to reduce power consumption by its consumers. It's like telling General Motors to reduce the number of cars their customers are buying.

Fossil or nuclear, I think I have decent future ahead of me. I am 26 years old and in another 10 years or so I will be one of the old veterans after the current veterans are retired.

 

[BJC]

IF ypu choose fossil try to get in on IGCC plants. Fossil plants as we know them will history soon enough.

 

[macmet]

to the OP...

Any chance you're in Canada and have a job for me? ha

 

[knight185]

Many of the fossil units in my company have a lot of life left in them they are repaired like they should be during scheduled outages. But I have a feeling a lot of old fossil units throughout the country may be shutdown due to EPA emissions requirements and litigation related to the EPA's new source review program. I know there is a lot of debate about what is considered routine maintenance. And for some units it simply won't be economical to install scrubbers, SCRs, etc.

 

[metengr]

Fossil plants as we know them will history soon enough.

....and replace them with what???? Wind? Solar? Come on be realistic. The US can't even get committments for new nuclear sites.

 

[knight185]

I often wonder how much the general public knows about how electricity is made and how bad it would be if fossil plants go away. All of the clean environment supporters may want fossil plants shutdown but I am sure they will not be happy with the lack of electricity that will be the result of shutting down fossil plants. Not only will it reduce supply of electricity, it will also cause instability on the electrical grid.

And don't forget that flue gas scrubbers also create plenty of solid waste. The waste can be converted into useful products but the market is not large enough to consume all of the waste, so it has to be stored somewhere, such as in large man-made storage ponds.