Nuclear Energy Course Overview and Why PWR Dominated Reactors

This course, 22.04 and 22.103, has evolved significantly from its origins as a small, focused class of six students exploring the struggles of nuclear power. Due to student petitions, it became a mandatory undergraduate course and later a mandatory graduate course. Now, it's a large class designed to challenge preconceived notions about nuclear power, particularly its historical and ongoing struggles to thrive, especially in the United States and increasingly in other parts of the world like France, Japan, and Korea.

The course aims to provide a deep understanding of the debates surrounding nuclear energy. While it previously involved extensive reading, the current structure still requires substantial reading, with the syllabus posted on Canvas. Readings are organized chronologically, to be completed either before or after the corresponding lecture as indicated.

Developing Critical Thinking and Writing Skills

A core goal of this class is to teach coherent and convincing writing, a skill increasingly challenged by the rise of AI. The instructor emphasizes the importance of critical reading and writing, especially for PhD students who must write and defend a thesis and prospectus. This course offers a valuable opportunity to practice writing about nuclear topics and receive faculty feedback.

Homework Assignments

The only mandatory writing assignment is the final paper. However, students can opt into smaller writing assignments throughout the semester to improve their writing skills. These assignments, typically one-page essays in response to readings, will be reviewed, and students will receive feedback to revise their work.

Due to budget cuts, there is no longer a Teaching Assistant for grading these assignments. Instead, initial submissions will be reviewed by an AI system trained by the instructor. This AI is particularly adept at identifying logical errors in arguments. Students will receive an AI-generated response, which they should treat as a peer review. They must then respond to all criticisms, either by fixing the issues or by explaining why they believe the review is incorrect in a cover sheet. As long as students engage in this process of reading, writing, and revising, they will receive a 100% score for the homework. The purpose is to motivate practice, not to grade for perfection on initial drafts.

The exact number of homework assignments will be adjusted to accommodate the AI grading system's capacity. The final revised versions will be briefly reviewed by the instructor for completion. Students who are too busy or prefer not to engage in this process can opt out of homework and focus solely on the final paper. Homework contributes only about 15% to the total grade, making it a low-stakes opportunity for skill development.

Final Paper and Oral Exam

The final paper is a research paper, not a book report. Students are expected to develop an original research question, conduct some original research, and answer that question. This is crucial practice for graduate students preparing for qualifying exams and prospectus defenses. The course will include workshops to help students refine their research questions to be well-thought-out and tractable within the semester's scope. The department's Writing Lab is also available for assistance.

To address concerns about AI-generated content, every student will have a one-on-one oral exam with the instructor during the last week and a half of the semester. The instructor will read the paper, formulate questions, and discuss the paper with the student to ensure they understand the content and genuinely wrote it. If convinced, the paper's score stands; otherwise, a longer conversation will ensue.

Guidelines for the final paper, including structure, expectations, and length, are available on Canvas. Examples of A-plus papers from previous students are also provided.

Using AI Tools

The instructor acknowledges that students will likely use AI tools for their final papers. While AI can assist in finding information, students are responsible for internalizing that information, ensuring its completeness and relevance, and being able to defend their arguments. AI is not yet reliable enough to write high-quality research papers without human oversight and can make factual or technical mistakes. Students are cautioned to critically evaluate AI-generated information and verify sources.

Class Lectures and Discussion

The class is designed to be discussion-friendly, encouraging students to speak up if they disagree or have questions. The instructor emphasizes that there is no single "canon of knowledge" to be memorized, but rather an exploration of policy choices and perspectives on nuclear energy. Students are encouraged to challenge the instructor's views and share their own perspectives, fostering a dialectic pursuit of truth.

The History of Nuclear Energy: From Stars to Submarines

The course will delve into the history of nuclear energy, primarily focusing on the United States, to provide context for its current state.

The Discovery of Nuclear Energy

The origins of nuclear energy discovery are rooted in the question of why stars shine.

• Early Theories: Initially, the sun was thought to burn like coal. Hermann von Helmholtz disproved this, calculating that chemical burning would only last a few thousand years.
• Kelvin-Helmholtz Mechanism: Helmholtz proposed gravitational contraction as the energy source, suggesting the sun could burn for 20 million years. This aligned with Lord Kelvin's estimate of Earth's cooling age (20-100 million years).
• Radioactivity's Role: Henri Becquerel's discovery of radioactivity revealed that Earth's internal heat from radioactive decay meant it had to be billions of years old, creating a paradox with the sun's estimated age.
• Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram: This diagram, plotting star luminosity against surface temperature, showed a non-uniform distribution of stars, suggesting an underlying mechanism beyond gravitational contraction. The observation that luminosity scaled to the third or fourth power of mass further indicated a different energy source with strong temperature dependence.
• Arthur Eddington's Insight (1920): Eddington theorized that stars drew on "subatomic energy," likely from the fusion of lighter atoms into heavier elements. He presciently noted that this power could be used for "the well-being of the human race—or for its suicide," recognizing the dual-use nature of nuclear energy even before its practical realization.

The Dawn of the Nuclear Age

• Leo Szilard's Chain Reaction (1933): Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard conceived the idea of a nuclear chain reaction, realizing its potential for uncontrolled energy release. He filed a secret patent with the British Navy to control this technology.
• Enrico Fermi's Experiments (1934): Fermi observed that bombarding uranium with neutrons produced various substances, though the splitting of the nucleus (fission) was not immediately recognized. Ida Noddack was the first to propose fission, though Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner later experimentally demonstrated it in 1938.
• Neutron Release (1939): Frédéric Joliot demonstrated that uranium fission released neutrons, and eventually, more than one neutron, confirming the possibility of a chain reaction.
• Fusion Research: Concurrently, research into plasma confinement and fusion, such as the linear pinch and Z-pinch, was ongoing, primarily in the UK.
• World War II and the Moral Dilemma: As global tensions escalated, Szilard urged Joliot not to publish his findings on neutron release, fearing it would lead to nuclear weapons. Joliot published anyway, making the possibility of a nuclear bomb known to physicists.
• The Einstein-Szilard Letter: Szilard, with Einstein's signature, wrote to President Roosevelt, leading to the formation of the Uranium Committee to investigate uranium fission.
• The Frisch-Peierls Memo: In 1940, Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls wrote a memo to the British government outlining the feasibility of a "super-bomb" with immense destructive power, based on first principles.
• The Manhattan Project: The British Tube Alloys Program and subsequent collaboration with the US and Canada led to the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb.

Secrecy and Government Control

The birth of nuclear energy during wartime led to immense secrecy, establishing a system of government control over all nuclear research, both military and peaceful.

• Bureaucracy and Security: Secrecy fostered large bureaucratic institutions, security apparatuses, and a divide between those "in the know" and those not, creating vested interests in protecting information and maintaining exclusivity.
• Government Funding: Nuclear research became a national security priority, attracting significant government funding.
• Atomic Energy Commission (AEC): Congress created the AEC to control all nuclear research, public and private, military and peaceful. This unprecedented government involvement profoundly shaped the emerging industry.

The Cold War and the "Kilowatt Race"

After World War II, nuclear power became a battleground in the Cold War, a "kilowatt race" between the US and the Soviet Union.

• AEC Leadership: The AEC was led by figures like David Lilienthal (former head of TVA) and Lewis Strauss (philanthropist and proponent of nuclear energy), who, despite lacking scientific backgrounds, saw a bright business future for nuclear power.
• Open-Ended Research: The AEC initially supported open-ended research into various reactor designs, aiming to find a commercially viable product cheaper than coal. They received 80 proposals and downselected to five, including homogeneous, sodium-graphite, and water-based reactors.
• Eisenhower's Budget Cuts (1953): Post-war budget cuts led to the termination of many AEC programs.
• The US Navy's Intervention: The US Navy, seeking to power submarines and counter superior Soviet vessels, developed its own nuclear program. They championed the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) due to its compact size, use of familiar water technology, and effective moderation for small cores. Safety and economic competitiveness were secondary to speed and operational advantages for submarines.
• PWR Dominance: The Navy successfully lobbied Congress, arguing that their PWR technology could also be adapted for land-based electricity generation, effectively taking over the AEC's role and securing funding. The AEC's experts had previously dismissed the PWR as too hardware-intensive and uneconomical.
• International Competition: Other nations, like France and the UK, also initially rejected the PWR in favor of gas-graphite reactors.
• The "Kilowatt Race" Heats Up: The Soviets were the first to connect a nuclear reactor to the grid (Abinsk, 1954), followed by the British (Calder Hall, 1956). The US, with its Shippingport PWR, lagged behind, connecting in December 1957.
• The 1954 Atomic Energy Act: To accelerate US nuclear development, Congress revised the Atomic Energy Act, encouraging private industry to build reactors. The AEC licensed 10 concepts, expecting private companies to fund R&D.
• Euratom and Market Creation: To incentivize American companies, who were hesitant due to market uncertainty, the US government, through "foreign aid" to Euratom (the European Atomic Energy Community), effectively paid European countries to buy a gigawatt of nuclear power from US companies. This created an instant market for American PWRs.
• The PWR Becomes the Standard: With a guaranteed customer base, the PWR, being the first American reactor to be completed, became the dominant design. Other, potentially cheaper or safer, reactor concepts were abandoned as there was no longer a market for them.

This historical trajectory illustrates how political and strategic considerations, rather than systematic technological evaluation, led to the widespread adoption of the PWR, shaping the future of nuclear power.