I would expect anyone calling themselves an engineer of any field to understand basics of fission power generation. Come on, it's 7th (school) grade material.
I would expect anyone calling themselves an engineer of any field to understand basics of fission power generation. Come on, it's 7th (school) grade material.
Basics yes, details no, and if you are deep in a mathematical proof the details matter. For example, I seriously doubt you will find an average 7th grader (or even a professional engineer outside of the nuclear power field) able to give you a good explanation or even definition of the void coefficient, and how it may interact with the fuel temperature coefficient of reactivity for a particular reactor design. Do you?
The number of geniuses in every field that congregate in HN is incredible, too bad they're here responding to comments instead of revolutionizing nuclear energy, math or medicine.
I am sure there's at least one seventh grader who knows about void coefficients for a particular reactor design because of one very particular RBMK reactor. Average, no, but the existence of a void coefficient has been popularized by a television series.
I had a similar conversation with a global warming sceptic friend.
It turns out that the "more CO2 = more warmer" model is hilariously simplified, and the real modelling gets into the weeds to put it mildly! There's a NASA database of the super-high-resolution absorption and emission spectra of every isotopic combination of every common molecule and ions, excited states, and more! It turns out that most of the forcing is determined by the behaviour of the upper atmosphere at high latitudes where the air is so thin that exotic excited states can persist for appreciable durations, and are made in large amounts by absorption of UV light. The "glancing angle" of the sunlight near the poles also means that even minor constituents participate in the exchange of IR radiation. Then, then, the simulation has to be run in many thin slices because air is so opaque to IR radiation that it bounces many times on the way up and down, and of course, the isotopic mixes (and excited fractions) are inconsistent between layers.
An insanely complex supercomputer model is required to come up with even a rough estimate of the actual warming.
And it's a huge distraction. Afaik (and I'm no climate researcher), the increased albedo of greater cloud coverage due to greater vaporization because of higher temperatures is the only known negative feedback effect. Everything else, be it reduced albedo due to less ice cover, increased release of Methane due to melting permafrost, increased release of CO2 due to more forest fires, etc. only accelerates global warming. So "more CO2 = more warmer" might be hilariously simplified, but it ain't wrong.
Only those who try to maximize profits while skirting the risk of a revolt care whether global average temperature will be 1.2 or 1.8K above pre-industrial average in ten years. For the rest it's already too warm, the damage is already plainly visible.
We don't need better models to predict future warming; we dragged our feet long enough that we can now look at historic data to see where it's going.
I can explain what the void coefficient is, why it is a dangerous simplification, why neutron moderation is needed, how it is typically controlled, why BWR reactors are inherently less stable than PWR. etc. it's simple really. All the while I have never had anything to do with nuclear power professionally or studied specifically it.
I might have overstated a bit, but by 9th grade (15 year old) this is what was taught to us back then.
> why neutron moderation is needed
What you learned, was it more like:
1. "You need to slow down neutrons so they can react"
or 2. "Here's the graphs of how the neutron absorption and scattering cross sections vary with neutron temperature for H-1, H-2, H-3, Be-9, C-12, O-16, Fe-54, Fe-56, Fe-57, U-233, U-235, U-238, Pu-239, …"
If it was the former, you didn't learn "nuclear engineering".
ofc, you can't even start talking about moderation and not mention cross-sections
(which is a simplification in itself, but that's best left until 2nd-3rd year in uni)
But for general understanding, .. there is stuff that slows neutrons. some is more effective, some less. There is also activation. It is why tanks and ifvs were lined with polyethylene or similar on the inside back in cold war - it had lots of hydrogen. But for controlling a power plant that is not enough - why?
and then we answer why.
I'm pretty confident that no 15 year old would have learned about void coefficients if Chernobyl hadn't happened.
Man you went to a way cooler high school than me. I definitely was not taught anything that would help me understand how a nuclear reactor work.
Not even basic thermodynamics?
having a lab assignment detecting beta-emission from 40-K (potassium-40 salt) is of course unthinkable nowadays. or idk, assembling a interferometer out of a HeNe laser for example. Whoa, no! Kids can get hurt!
Being familiar with the basics of fission power generation does not put the design of a competitive plant within your wheelhouse.
Nor understanding and judging a proposed design, yes.
I went to a decent high school, this was not something covered in 7th grade. It isn't covered in my daughter's school either.
For the 2026 version of me out there, please ignore. It is nerd posturing, and as real as the boomers at your gym claiming to have benched 225/315/405 in high school, despite having terrible form while doing 185.
By that standard, I could've been an astronaut at that age.
Newton's laws of motions are not hard. Making a rocket that doesn't kill the occupant, is.