U.S. Nuclear Engineering Infrastructure Programs and ...


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

U.S. Nuclear Engineering Infrastructure Programs and ...

  1. 1. John Gutteridge Director of University Programs Office of Nuclear Energy U.S. Department of Energy June 29, 2006 U.S. Nuclear Engineering Infrastructure Programs and Workforce Demographics Presentation to the North America Energy Working Group
  2. 2. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (2) Matching Grants $ 1.0 $ 1.0 Fellowships/Scholarships (Includes Minority Awards) 2.0 2.4 University Nuclear Infrastructure 14.7 14.1 Nuclear Engineering Education Research 4.9 5.0 Fellowships/Scholarships - HP 0.2 0.3 Radiochemistry 0.3 0.6 Nuclear Engineering Education Opportunities 0.4 0.6 Other – 3.0 TOTAL $23.5 $27.0 $3.0 $27.0 ? University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance Program FY 2007 FY 2007 House Congr. Approp. FY 2008 FY 2005 FY 2006 Request Mark Request
  3. 3. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (3) New and Existing States With Participating Universities Clark/Atlanta Clemson University Colorado State University Georgia Institute of Technology Idaho State University Kansas State University Livingstone College* Linn State Technical College Massachusetts Institute of Technology Morgan State University* New Mexico State University** North Carolina State University Ohio State University Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico** Prairie View A&M University* Purdue University Reed College Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center South Carolina State University* Texas A&M University Texas A&M Kingsville** Three Rivers Community College Tuskegee Institute* University of Arizona University of California-Berkeley University of California-Davis University of California-Irvine University of Cincinnati University of Florida University of Illinois University of Maryland University of Massachusetts-Lowell University of Michigan University of Missouri-Columbia University of Missouri-Rolla University of Nevada – Las Vegas University of New Mexico** University of South Carolina University of Tennessee University of Texas University of Utah University of Virginia University of Wisconsin Washington State University West Point Military Academy Wilberforce University* Worcester Polytechnic Institute Program Participants *U.S. Historically Black Colleges and Universities; **Hispanic Serving Institution
  4. 4. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (4) Trends In Enrollment DOEInvestment ($inMillions) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 0 500 1000 1500 2000 NumberofStudents Undergraduate Student Enrollment HBCU/HSI Student Enrollment DOE Investment
  5. 5. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (5) University Programs: Serving Many Needs  Student Support:  Fellowships, Scholarships and Internships • 30 NE/HP Fellows, 80+ scholars, 40 internships  Partnerships with Minority Institutions • 8 partnerships serving >70 students from Minority community  Reactor sharing • Provides research, training and education to thousands of students as well as faculty  Radiochemistry • Supports undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate students as well as faculty through fellowships and faculty assistance  Nuclear Engineering Education Recruitment • Through ANS, conduct 35-50 teacher workshops each year; introduce nuclear science curriculum into high schools; both serve to educate pre- college students and teachers about nuclear technology and issues
  6. 6. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (6) University Programs: Serving Many Needs (cont.) Infrastructure Support  Fuel Assistance • Provide fuel to university research reactors (TRIGA + PLATE) as needed • Remove, ship and dispose of spent fuel elements at Savannah River or Idaho • Convert reactors to LEU fuel in cooperation with NNSA  Reactor Instrumentation • Provide funding for reactor instrumentation, security and facility improvements  Matching Grants • Provide 25 universities with funding support, matched by industry (about 35 private sponsors), to improve any and all aspects of their nuclear engineering program from equipment to labs to student and faculty support
  7. 7. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (7) University Programs: Serving Many Needs (cont.) Research Support  Annually 15-28 new awards are made in the Nuclear Engineering Education Research Program  These peer-reviewed awards to faculty support research in 9 subject areas: • Reactor Physics, Reactor Engineering, Reactor Materials, Radiological Engineering, Radioactive Waste Management, Applied Radiation Science, Nuclear Safety & Risk Analysis, Innovative Technologies, and Health Physics (low dose radiation/HPS)  Funding for 51 new and continuing awards (three year awards are most common) total $5.0 M/year.  Average award of $100k/year usually supports a faculty member and a graduate student or two  Research in one of nine topic areas does not need to be DOE-mission oriented.
  8. 8. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (8) Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and Education (INIE)  INIE is designed to have universities, national laboratories and private industry working together on nuclear research and education issues  Six university consortiums funded – number of schools within consortiums has grown from 14 to 38 schools  For FY 2005 -- $8.0M available  Consortium members (as of 2006) • BIG-10: Penn State, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Purdue, Michigan, and Cincinnati • New England: MIT, Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center, Massachusetts-Lowell, RPI • Southwestern: Texas A&M, Texas, and New Mexico, Prairie View A&M, Texas • Western: Oregon State, UC-Berkeley, UC-Davis, Washington State, Idaho State, Reed, UC-Irvine, and University of Nevada-Las Vegas • Southeastern (MUSIC): NC State, Tennessee, South Carolina, Maryland, Georgia Tech, Florida, Air Force Institute, and South Carolina State • Midwest: Missouri-Columbia, Missouri-Rolla, Missouri-KC, Tuskegee, and Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico, Linn State, Kansas State
  9. 9. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (9) University Partnerships in Nuclear Engineering Education: Program Objectives and Purpose  Designed to attract minority college students into the field of nuclear engineering  Partners a majority school with a nuclear engineering program with a minority institution  Students at the minority school can complete their degree in a selected scientific field while obtaining a second or advanced degree in nuclear engineering
  10. 10. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (10) University Research Reactor Conversion  NE’S role: • Continue responsibility for university research reactor program • Enhanced security during conversion • Ancillary activities associated with conversion • Spent fuel shipping costs  NNSA’s role: • Purchase of material and fabrication of replacement fuel • Initial shipment of fresh LEU fuel The Secretary of Energy mandated that all Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) research reactors would be converted by 2013. Joint NE and NNSA action to convert two university research reactors at Texas A&M University and University of Florida
  11. 11. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (11) Examples of Outreach Efforts University Partnerships Morgan State Summer Program Fellowships and Scholarships Formal Survey of NE Students past BS degree (Messer) Summer Internships for Nuclear and Non-nuclear Students Harnessed Atom – Pittsburgh Public Schools
  12. 12. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (12) The Harnessed Atom: High School Edition  The Harnessed Atom  Science educational curriculum developed 20 years ago by DOE Office of Nuclear Energy for junior high classrooms  Includes a Teacher’s Guide, Student Reader, experiments and activities, and a video in mini-CD format (originally a filmstrip)  Though designed for junior-high age students, it tested successfully on non-science major students through Junior College level  10,000 classroom sets produced by DOE
  13. 13. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (13) The Harnessed Atom: High School Honors Edition  For more advanced students grades 11-12  Update content and format  Work with a Public School system to review and validate through Pilot Test of the curriculum  Field Test a revised edition in regions across the U.S.  Distribute validated curriculum nationally in partnership with Labs, academic institutions, public and private sectors Objective: Redesign 20-year Old Curriculum
  14. 14. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (14)  Why we are updating the curriculum  Helps ensure that United States maintains the technical skill base required to support our energy infrastructure  Increases awareness at the pre-college level for students interested in sciences and engineering, including nuclear engineering  Helps high school students make informed choices about college majors and career options  Supports Department of Energy mission to foster education and understanding of energy technologies and options The Harnessed Atom: High School Honors Edition
  15. 15. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (15) The Harnessed Atom: High School Honors Edition  Strengthens teaching of fundamental nuclear science concepts  Provides critical thinking experiences for students  Teaches basic science of energy production, thermodynamics, radiation, nuclear reactions, and nuclear energy  Provides clear, unbiased information on nuclear topics What revised Harnessed Atom will accomplish in classrooms
  16. 16. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (16) The Harnessed Atom: High School Honors Edition This is a partnership where everyone wins  Strengthens teaching of fundamental nuclear science concepts at the high school level  Industry and academic institutions benefit because students are better prepared  Teachers gain valuable teaching resources  Students gain knowledge of nuclear science, energy technology and of career options that will help them far beyond high school Electrostatic Fun for Pittsburgh High Schooler at Oak Ridge Science Museum
  17. 17. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (17) National Recruiting and Marketing Effort
  18. 18. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (18) Information Sources When you were considering colleges and universities in high school, which sources of information were most important to you? (select up to three) • College ranking guidebooks/websites 50.9% • Campus visit 49.5% • College websites 30.6% • Parents 27.3% • Direct mail from colleges 23.1% • High school teachers 20.8% • Students (family or friends in college) 19.9% • High school guidance counselors 13.4% • Family friends or community members / Other 10.6% • Brother/Sister or other family 9.3% • Graduates of the college of your interest 8.3% • College fairs at high schools 3.2% • Direct mail from science teachers’ professional assoc. 5.1% • High school alumni enrolled in college 3.2%
  19. 19. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (19) College Choice When you made your choice of which college or university to attend, which of the following factors were most important in your final decision? (select up to three) • Availability of a specific major 55.6% • Quality of undergraduate education 50.0% • National reputation 48.6% • Campus size and location 39.8% • Total cost to attend the institution 36.6% • Job opportunities/ placement for graduates 23.6% • Availability of scholarships 20.8% • High quality faculty 16.2% • Availability of financial assistance 15.7% • Student access to faculty 8.8% • Quality of graduate education 7.9% • COOP/ Internship opportunities 6.9% • Strict admissions standards 5.6% • Other 4.6% • Avail. of ROTC programs/Parent is an alumnus 3.7%
  20. 20. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (20) When Introduced to the Field  When did you first hear about majors or careers involving nuclear science/engineering/technology or health physics? • 8th grade or before 21.8% • 9th grade 9.3% • 10th grade 11.6% • 11th grade 21.8% • 12th grade 18.1% • Freshman in college 15.3% • Sophomore in college 2.3% M/F difference is significant
  21. 21. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (21) How Introduced to the Field How did you first hear about majors in nuclear science/engineering/technology, or health physics? (select one) • Other 18.1% • High school teacher 14.8% • An intro to engineering/physics class 14.4% • Toured a nuclear facility, research center or hospital 6.5% • A mailing or brochure 6.0% • A college open house/information session while in H.S. 6.0% • Friend(s) studying nuclear science or engineering 5.6% • Family friend or community member 3.2% • An open house/information session while in college 2.3% • High school counselor 0.9%
  22. 22. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (22) Attraction to the Field What attracted you most to the field of nuclear science? (select up to three) • Intellectually stimulating 55.1% • Attractive salary 47.7% • Good job opportunities 36.6% • Challenging career 32.9% • Work at the forefront of technology 31.9% • Work in a cool career 28.7% • Providing clean energy 28.7% • Good job security 25.5% • Importance of national energy independence, or national security 21.8% • Work in a problem-solving environment 19.9% • Work in a complex career 16.7% • Rapid job advancement 10.2% • Other 4.2%
  23. 23. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (23) Expected Area of Work NOTE: Academic and National Lab may overlap somewhat in terms of work area, and that these students may not be far enough along in their college career to know the options in these two areas Also note that Commercial Power and the category “utility” was added together In which area of nuclear science/engineering/technology or health physics do you plan to work after your degree/certificate completion? • Commercial Power 23.1% • Research & development 14.8% • Nuclear medicine 14.4% • Other 11.6% • National lab 8.3% • Military 6.5% • Academic (university teaching or research) 4.2% • Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3.2% • Major Vendor/Architect/Eng. Organization 2.8% • Department of Energy 2.8% • Weapons 2.3% • Waste management or envir. restoration 2.3% • Consulting 1.4%
  24. 24. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (24) Area of Study Which best describes your area of study in nuclear science? • Power plant systems and operations 33.8% • Engineering physics 17.6% • Plasma, fusion, laser research 13.4% • Core design 10.2% • Radiation protection (medical) 7.4% • Medical research 7.4% • Radiation protection (power) 5.1%
  25. 25. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (25) Survey of Enrollments, Graduates, Employment
  26. 26. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (26) Overview – Survey of Enrollments/Graduates/Employment  Survey conducted from October 2005 - March 2006  Information requested for five years (2000-2005)  Enrollments – undergraduate and graduate  Graduates – undergraduate and graduate  Employment – BS, MS, Ph.D. – Engineering firm, DOE, medical, military, NASA, NRC, university, utility, vendor, non-nuclear, foreign, continuing education  Minorities and women  Outside support (leveraging of DOE funds)  32 universities surveyed – average of 23 provided recent data and an average of 20 provided “prior year” data
  27. 27. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (27) Undergraduate Enrollment
  28. 28. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (28) Graduate Enrollment
  29. 29. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (29) Undergraduate Degrees
  30. 30. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (30) Graduate Degrees
  31. 31. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (31) Minorities and Women Undergraduate and Graduate Levels
  32. 32. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (32) Undergraduate Employment
  33. 33. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (33) Masters Employment
  34. 34. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (34) Ph.D. Employment
  35. 35. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (35) Grant Dollars Received/Support Dollars Received
  36. 36. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (36) Survey Summary  Enrollments continue to increase at a fairly dramatic rate  Degrees are increasing at the undergraduate level but remain fairly consistent at the graduate level  Data on female students is encouraging  Employment data for undergraduate and master graduates is close to expected results (primarily continuing education) with Ph.D. employment evenly distributed among sectors.  Leveraged funding is increasing and demonstrates that the DOE/NE program is useful in attracting non-DOE funding
  37. 37. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (37) 2005 NEI Workforce Survey
  38. 38. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (38) Nuclear Generation 5-Year Attrition Source: 2005 NEI Pipeline Survey 1. Potential Retirees are defined as employees that will be older than 53 with 25+ years of service, or older than 63 with 20 years of service, or older than 67 within the next five years. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18-22 23-27 28-32 33-37 38-42 43-47 48-52 53-57 58-62 63-67 67+ General Attrition ~7,600 or 13% Potential Retirements ~15,600 or 27%
  39. 39. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (39) Nuclear Industry Retention Study (Exelon)
  40. 40. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (40) Nuclear Workforce Statistics  Median age of U.S. labor workforce has risen from 36.6 in 1992 to an expected 41.3 by 2012  By 2010, jobs will outnumber available workers by 10 million • Baby Boomer retirements • Decrease in workers age 25-34  In nuclear industry, employers are hiring employees away from each other  Only 6 percent of nuclear workers are 32 or younger  With new nuclear plant construction imminent, demographics are a concern  Exelon study provides strategies to nuclear industry employers in retaining employees within the industry
  41. 41. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (41) Retention Study Categories  Four generations of workers established based on birth date • Veterans (1922-1943) • Baby Boomers (1943-1960) • Generation Xers (1960-1980) • Nexters (1980 and later)  Each generation is defined by: • Work ethic • Perspective of success in the workplace • Distinct and preferred ways of managing and being managed • Views on employment issues (quality, service, etc.)  Next steps: • Validating strategies of retention with representative samples of each generation
  42. 42. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (42) View of the World by Generation Veterans Boomers Xers Nexters Outlook Practical Optimistic Skeptical Hopeful Work Ethic Dedicated Driven Balanced Determined View of Authority Respectful Love/hate Unimpressed Polite Leadership by Hierarchy Consensus Competence Pulling together Relationships Personal sacrifice Personal gratification Reluctant to commit Inclusive Turnoffs Vulgarity Political incorrectness Cliché, hype Promiscuity
  43. 43. Gutteridge/Jun29_06NAEnergyWG.ppt (43) Where to Now?  Continue Core University Program while convening an expert working group to look at the future needs of the nuclear workforce and nuclear education. (October Conference)  Finalize National Recruiting Marketing Effort to identify when and how to reach prospective students. (Marketing Video)  Continue outreach via the “Harnessed Atom” teaching module, reaching more school systems in different parts of the country. (Idaho, Oregon, North Carolina)  Continue to survey, on a yearly basis, the demographics of current students and recent graduates to track their progress and retention in the nuclear sector.