Jackal301
Nuclear Engineer
Sample size is way too small to make any assumptions from that. 1607 people took the exam. Only 103 people responded to the survey.
So like what do you think the cut score will be? Like seriously?
- Thread starter CivilGuy00
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
That's a pretty decent response rate. Especially for this forum.
side question: Are you a Nuke E? or EE?
Jackal301
Nuclear Engineer
BS and MS in EE, however my job title is "Nuclear Engineer". Essentially I work on electrical control/power systems associated with primary and secondary systems on nuclear reactors.
Understood, makes perfect sense now. At first I was wondering why a degreed nuclear engineer would take the EE exam instead of the nuclear exam. The nuke undergrad curriculum usually only requires "intro to circuits", and its typically devoid of electrical at the graduate level.
Jackal301
Nuclear Engineer
cornsnicker3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 32
Is Nuclear Engineering really as fun as it sounds?
Not quite. MS Nuclear, PPE nuclear, work in nuclear.
There isn't an option for "Nuclear" in the discipline menu in the profile, so I picked undergrad degree.
Jackal301
Nuclear Engineer
Ahhh gotcha. How was the Nuclear PE exam? I looked at that reference material that NCEES provides and it looked awful.
I took a grad level Reactor Theory and Design class and I loved it.
Yes... and no. Radiological controls are the bane of my existence. I work for the DoD as a Federal employee and get to travel a lot.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it is. I've done a lot of really cool and cutting edge stuff with high societal impact. Had a lot of fun and did great work for many years. But I don't work in power.
At the undergrad level it's kind of like a mechanical degree with bunch of hard physics electives (gross over simplification). Different story on the graduate level - basically applied physics and mathematics there. I wouldn't recommend it for current high schoolers and underclassmen though. The (cool?) jobs won't be there in 20+ years. Medical physics would be a much safer option if one wanted to do something "nuclear".
Surf and Snow
PE Power Engineer
cornsnicker3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 32
I get the whole not being there in the future thing. Politics really controls our respective industries.
Common people hate the pipeline industry stemming from the DAPL and Keystone XL fiascos. My state is still wrestling with Enbridge's Line 3 which could very well the beginning of the end to the bulk of my industry.
Jackal301
Nuclear Engineer
Reaction on this board and among people who took both exams seems to suggest that April 2018 was harder than October 2017 as well, so I wouldn't be surprised if the highest fail score was lower than 53. Especially given that it was a new version of the exam.
Nuclear PPE? It Suuuuuuuuuccccccckkkkks! Historically one of the lowest passing rates of any test. Very broad test - basically the entire nuclear undergrad curriculum with some real world nuke plant questions. The nuclear plant and related questions (like ~30% of the test) are gimmies if you've ever worked in a plant (assuming the questions are on a PWR and you worked in a PWR, or the questions are on BWRs and you worked at a BWR). But the majority of us haven't worked at a power plant (navy, weapons, DOE, research, academia, medicine, space, HP, shielding, detection, security, etc) so those questions are nearly impossible to study and prepare for. It'd be like asking what side of the car is gas tank located on in a 2012 Elantra, easy if you drive one, good luck guessing otherwise. Meanwhile those that have worked in the plant have forgotten a sizeable chunk of the nuclear physics from school, so like ~30+% of the questions are hard - but easy to study for. I was in the first category and it bit me my first attempt.
At my old job I used to be in charge of nuclear safety. I have no sympathy for you.
It's not politics that's the issue, its economics.
Sorry, I disagree. SMRs won't be able to compete with natural gas turbines.
Jackal301
Nuclear Engineer
knight1fox3
Jedi MASTER & Friend of Capt. Solo
Time will tell. But the licenses in most of the midwest plants I worked at are coming up due very soon with no intention of renewal.
In the midwest, when I was a consultant power engineer, many of the coal-fired systems were being converted over CNG turbines.
Jackal301
Nuclear Engineer
I don't know what CGS is. I am a federal DoD employee.You must be up at CGS. I work for the transmission system around you.
However, if you work transmission in the PNW I pretty much know you work for BPA... if I pass the exam I will be looking for a job at the Vancouver office!
cornsnicker3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 32
So then a Nuke is no longer economically advantageous so long as natural gas is at its price point?
Similar threads
